Researching pedagogy: an Activity Theory approach Towards a language of description Joanne Hardman School of Education University of Cape Town

Problem Pedagogy in classrooms is complex –Need to understand cognitive dimension –And social dimension –And dynamic interaction between these dimensions BUT HOW?

What Vygotsky gives us Tools have a developmental impact Mediation – guided assistance (Gallimore & Tharp, 1993) in the zone of proximal development (ZPD)- space between actual and potential development. Principle of assistance. Schooling is about acquiring scientific concepts Social recognised BUT insufficiently articulated (see Leontiev,1981)

Engeström ’s activity systems thinking Subject Object Outcome Rules CommunityDivision of labor Mediating artefacts

What Engestrom (1987) gives us Fleshes out context as an activity system Three mediating relationships: 1.Tool mediates between subject and object 2.Rules mediate between community and subject 3.Division of labour mediates between community and object Identification of object enables one to understand activity BUT not operationalised in relation to pedagogical practices; Not clear how to study object observationally.

HOW to use AT empirically? No set AT methodology outside of Engestrom’s Developmental Work Research (1987; 2005) used to describe expansive learning in the workplace and surface object through contradictions. BUT how to track object using observations?

Method for using AT to study pedagogy Evaluative episodes: –Coherent classroom activity where teacher elaborates evaluative criteria required to produce a legitimate script/text (Bernstein, 1996). How to identify an evaluative episode –Represent a disruption in the pedagogical script where the teacher is called on to RESTATE the evaluative criteria

EVALUATIVE EPISODE

Questions to ask when analysing evaluative episodesAT concepts What is produced in the episode?Outcomes What tool(s) is/are used?Mediating artefacts What is the object/focus of this episode? What is the purpose of the activity for the subject? What is the teacher working on? Why is s/he working on it? Object Who does what in this episode? Who determines what is meaningful? Division of labour What community is involved in this episode? What group of people work together on the object Community What kinds of rules: Instructional rules= evaluative rules and pacing rules Social order rules= disciplinary rules and communicative interaction rules Rules

A face-to-face mathematics lesson Teacher: so 1/8 of ½ is 1/16? Ok. Ishmael: Miss, [unclear] puts hand up Teacher: Hmm? Ishmael: there’s a pattern miss. you don’t have to fold it Teacher: Ishmael says, Ishmael says he did not have to fold it, he saw a pattern there, he did not have to fold it. Ok, Ishmael, tell us. Ishmael: a ½ of ½ miss is equal to ¼ miss and then I said ¼ of ½ is 1/8 so whenever you give your answer you times it by two like four times two and equal and Just times the denominator miss.

Findings 1: Mathematics grade 6 face to face episode Subject Object Outcome Rules Community Division of labour Mediating artefacts Development of student‘s reflective understanding of mathematics Teacher Belief that children need to be able to reason and reflect on their problem solving actions Rules of the social order: low teacher control over social order rules [1] Instructional rules: weak teacher control over pacing [1] Evaluative criteria: elaborated and explicit [4] Teacher role= mediator Student role= reflector Teacher Student Mathematically sophisticated students Tools: blackboard and cardboard: generative tool use Language: mathematical utterances to explain math content

Computer-based mathematics lesson Yis people, you must listen man! Walks around checking work; stands behind Sizwe and Mohammed looking at their work. This isn’t half Why do you say it’s half. Not a question as the teacher does not anticipate [or receive] a reply as evidenced by her turning her back to the child who she addresses. Why did you colour it half. The teacher wrinkles her eyebrows and walks away from the pair; they do not attempt to answer her and this appears not be a question. Who are finish people? No hands up That is correct, That is correct (points at two screens) 6 hands go up. Three minutes pass and then she looks at her watch Right people, we gonna move onto the next exercise Quickly!

Findings 2: computer-based mathematics episode Subject Object Outcome Rules CommunityDivision of labour Mediating artifacts Material tools: computer as representational tool; semiotic tools, language Development of students’ technical skills TEACHER Students need to be taught technical skills Social order rules: strong teacher control [3- 4] Instructional rules: pacing strong teacher control by teacher [3-4] Evaluation criteria: not elaborated [1] Space: weakly bounded Teacher role= facilitator Student role= performer Teacher; Student Software designer Facilitator; Parents and wider community Technologicall y literate students

Conclusions Engeström’s systems thinking helps contextualise complex cognitive activity as an activity system. BUT lots of empirical work still to be done –Operationalising high level concepts empirically. –Studying developmental trajectories –Studying pedagogical practices