This paper explores nature of learning activity from socio-constructivist and critical pedagogy perspective. Active teaching/learning paradigm with the work of Vygotsky, Piaget, Dewey and their adherents is theoretical background of this research as well as Freire’s and his adherents' ideas on what meaningful learning in contemporary society is. Definition of teaching/learning process based on their work is taken as starting point for finding possible discrepancies of their theory in international educational practice today. 

There are three questions that lead this research. First one is how to recognize activities intended to be learning activities but do not fulfill educational goals and are neither purposeful, nor meaningful. Focus is on the activities that most of the educators consider very motivational and participatory and  therefore they occur often in educational theory and practice. Secondone is: what are the contextual and individual aspects of teaching/learning process that are favorable for this kind of activities. And finally it was explored what are the possible consequences of these activities for teaching/learning process and students’ development.

So the main aim of the paper is to develop criteria for identifying non-meaningful teaching/learning activities (didactical choices, methodologies and learning tasks) that can be considered as pseudoactivities. Development of these criteria is based on the exploratory research that included qualitative content analysis of international teaching resources (American, English, German, Montenegrin and Serbian).  These resources include: textbooks, teaching handbooks, lesson plans, class scenarios and classroom observations (organized in Serbian schools). Leading findings suggest that this kind of activities occurs often, and spends valuable time for learning but can hardly create desirable outcomes or reach planned objectives. Disproportion of: the time needed for the activity; students’ cognitive involvement (measured by revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson, Krathwohl, 2001); and the expected outcome of the activity is found and taken as starting point for development of criteria for recognizing pseudoactivity. Some qualitative differences among different counties were found too.

Regarding these findings, suggested criteria for identifying pseudoactivities are next:

1. Criteria of cognitive involvement: it involves clear distinction of purely “hands in” from “hands and mind in” activities with suggestion that time needed for the activity should be in proportion with level of cognitive involvement in revised Bloom’s taxonomy (higher levels – longer time dedicated during classes).
2. Criteria of relating everyday/spontaneous concepts to scientific concepts: teacher’s primary job is not only to teach what is life, but how is life connected to science, art and technology. It does not mean that important life skills should not be learned in the school (beside other agents of socialization) it means that learning those skills should be embedded in each learning activity that already has connection with some organized civilization knowledge.  
3. Zone of proximal development criteria: activity is meaningful only if is a step ahead of student’s competencies, and represents the hardest request that student can do with cooperation of other (other student or teacher).
4. Contextual and subject specific relevance of learning goals criteria: activities should be in line with learning goals that mirror contemporary context by developing competencies needed in that context (globally as well as locally). Some activities are good for learning languages but used in social sciences are very low in cognitively engaging students.

It is concluded that pseudoactivities (activities recognized as pseudo according above mentioned criteria) will probably fail to develop competencies needed for 21^st century (Triling, Fadel, 2009; Euridice report 2012) and present education as shallow and non productive which is why should be avoided. These activities represent educationalists' misconceptions about teaching/learning so implications for recognizing and avoiding pseudoactivities in teaching practice (planning and implementation of the classes) are discussed in the end of the paper.

- Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman. - Anderson, L.W., Demetriou A., Musal, B., Mavroskoufis, D., Chodolldou, E., Janevski, V., Pešikan, A., Koren, S., Spasić, R. (2013). Teaching for learning, a reference-guide for results-oriented teachers, Solun: CDRSEE. - Apple, M. W., Ball, S. J., Gandin, L. A., (2010). The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education. London: Routledge. - Arends, R. L. (2012). Learning to teach. New York: McGraw-Hill - Classification of learning activities – Manual, (2006). European comission. - European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012. Developing Key Competences at School in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. - Hudson, B., Meyer, M. (2011). Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, learning and teaching in Europe. Opladen and Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich publishers. - Freire, P., (2008). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum. - Ivic, I., Pesikan, А., Antic, S., (2003). Active learning 2. Belgrade: Institute for psychology, Faculty of Philosophy. - Langford, P. (2005). Vygotsky’s developmental and educational psychology, New York: Psychology press. - Liessmann, K. P. (2006). Theorie der Unbildung. Wien: Paul Zslonay Verlag. - Long, M., Wood, C., Littleton, K., Passenger, T., Sheehy, K., (2011). The Psychology of education, 2nd edition. London: Routledge (str. 166-184, str. 185-208) - Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. - Pesikan, А. (2010). Savremeni pogled na prirodu školskog učenja i nastave: socio-konstruktivističko gledište i njegove praktične implikacije. [Contemporrary view towards nature of school learning and teaching: socio.konstructivist perspective and its practical implications]. Psihološka istraživanja, XIII (2), 157-184. - Pešikan, A. (2012). Dewejeva aktivna škola: Aktivno učenje – osrednja ideja in osrednja težava teorije Johna Deweyja. [Dewey’s active school: Active learning – the strongest and the weakest point of John Dewey’s theory] U: J. Dewey, Šola in družba, spremni študij S.Gaber i A.Pešikan. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta, str. 117-135. - Sewall, G. T. (2000). Lost in Action. American Educator, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 4-9,42. - Triling, B., Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. - Vigotski, L. S. (1996). Mišljenje i govor. Sabrana dela Lava Vigotskog. [Thought and speech. The collected works of Lev Vygotsky]. Belgrade: Zavod za udzbenike. - Zahorik, J.A. (1996). „Elementary and secondary teachers’ reports of how they make learning interesting.“ The Elementary School Journal. Vol. 96(5); 551-564.