Service as activity A cultural historical approach to service learning Christopher G pupik dean cpu@gse.upenn.edu

Why sociocultural theories? Suggestions of the need to examine practice through sociocultural lenses: Levine & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2010 McIntosh & Youniss, 2010 Torney-Purta, Amadeo, & Andolina, 2010 Why? We have: examined knowledge, skills, dispositions We need to examine the ways that knowledge, skills, dispositions are being put to use in civic engagement (practice) Goals: Provide some background on these theories Illustrate how they can add to SL & CE research

Sociocultural Theories Building off Vygotsky: Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT or activity theory) (Cole & Engeström, 1993; Engeström, 1987) Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991)

Vygotsky

Mediating artifacts/tools Are social Are historical Are cultural Are material/ideal Are transformed over time

CHAT Doing school – school going Engestrom, 2001

Legitimate Peripheral Participation Novices  Masters Butchers (Lave & Wenger, 1991) Teachers (Tsui & Law, 2007) Service Learning Students?

Summary: Subjects interact with the world through the use of meditational artifacts (tools) These tools are: Socially, culturally, and historically developed (and continuously developing) Within systems Consisting of communities With particular rules & divisions of labor New tools can be appropriated (or old tools modified) when systems interact

So how is this helpful? A structure for focusing on practice: Identify and examine the transformation of tools of civic engagement (where knowledge, skills, dispositions interact) Examine the rules and communities that structure tool use Consider historical development of the tool Look for: LPP, boundary crossing, and boundary objects A change in the unit of analysis: From individual development to development of systems 2 layer analysis: Individual phenomenological perspectives Outsider 30,000 ft view

Using sociocultural theory to explain phenomena Students in a 10th grade SL class (tutoring 1st graders) exhibited a change in how they talked about the teachers they worked with: Initial tool: critical stories of classroom practice: yelling, disorganization Subsequent tool: more positive orientation to classroom practice Teachers care, have tough job, know individual student needs But maintained an orientation that teachers are the problem in public education Lazy In it for the money (unions) WHY?

Knowledge, Skills, Mindsets Teaching is hard These teachers care Skills: Tutoring in a classroom Talking about classroom practice Mindsets: The teachers care Teachers are the problem

Sociocultural Initial tool: Teachers are the key to educational success History: developed in own experience, stories of others about public schools Community: privileged, high value on ed, teachers held in great esteem Rules: value teachers in our school, maintain prestige of own ed Boundary crossing/LPP: engaged in classroom practice, not in larger issues Closing tool: Teachers are key… this school is an exception (does not contradict the model) Object of discourse did not connect

References Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectices on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward and activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, Youth, and Crisis (1st ed.). New York: Norton. Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging Approaches to Educational Research: Tracing the Socio-Material. London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415570923/ Levine, P., & Higgins-D’Alessandro. (2010). Youth civic engagement: Normative issues. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth (E-Book.). Wiley. McIntosh, H., & Youniss, J. (2010). Toward a political theory of political socialization of youth. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth. New Jersey: Wiley. Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Community Service and Higher Learning: Explorations of the Caring Self. Albany: State University of New York Press. Torney-Purta, J., Amadeo, J.-A., & Andolina, M. (2010). A conceptual framework and multimethod approach for research on political socialization and civic engagement. Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth (E-book.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Tsui, A. B. M., & Law, D. Y. K. (2007). Learning as Boundary-Crossing in School-University Partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23. Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1997). Community Service and Social Responsibility in Youth. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.