Possibilities of expansive methodologies informed by CHAT: two case studies in educational

research

Malba Barahonamalba.barahona@anu.edu.au

Stephen Darwinstephen.darwin@anu.edu.au

2

Methodological challenges of CHAT research

CHAT is not a methodology of itself, nor does it naturally assert one, nor offer an obvious set of research techniques, methodologies or procedures (Engeström 1993; Daniels, 2008)

It is primarily a ‘philosophical framework for studying different forms human praxis as developmental processes, both individual and social levels interlinked at the same time’ (Kuutti, cited in Jonassen, 2000)

CHAT inherently inspires research methodologies that are more conceptual and open-ended, rather than empirical and diagnostic in form.

At what levels can CHAT’s methodology be interventionist?

3

The (interventionist) focus of CHAT research?

Absence of clear and

accessible methodological guidance (Roth

& Lee, 2007; Yamagata-

Lynch, 2010)

Significant number of

studies tend to employ CHAT

as a broad heuristic to

investigate or explore situated

practice

Predominant methodological association with

Engeström’s developmental work research and Change Laboratory

(Darwin, 2011)

Different emerging formative

intervention strategies developed

within a defined context

4

Defining methodologies in two CHAT-based studies in educational environments

Interventionist/collective activity

One study twinned CHAT with a modified action research methodology to analyse the origins, effect and expansive potential of student feedback in Australian higher education

Heuristic/individual development

The second study used CHAT as a primarily heuristic tool to examine how pre-service teachers learnt to teach EFL in a Chilean SLTE program

Both made attempts to broaden the methodological range (and expansive potential) of CHAT

5

Study One: CHAT-informed action research

Participatory action research developed via critical engagement in

complex social practices

Integration of CHAT analytical framework

(activity system analysis and expansive learning cycle) within ongoing

cycles of action research

Practitioners guided conceptually to deepen beyond the local to the

mediating role of cultural-historical artefacts in shaping (expansive)

practice

Researcher as a provocateur: disruptive

intervention in AR cycles

6

Study One: CHAT-informed action research

Ongoing CHAT-based AR cycle and modelled social

learning practice

Tensions, contradictions and expansive development

potential critically developed in relational agency (i.e.

social/individual)

Developmental change to collaborative activity to

sustain improved practices: deepen-extend theoretical knowledge of practice over

time

7

Study Two: CHAT as a heuristic

CHAT used as an analytical tool “to understand and describe the interaction between individuals and natural settings” (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010).

CHAT was the prism to understand how a group of pre-service teachers learnt to teach EFL in a Chilean SLTE program

Analysis of activity systems and boundary crossing: schools and SLTE program(university).

8

Study Two: CHAT as a heuristic

Chilean context: educational system, national curriculum

Teacher education program/schools

Pre-service teachers

9

On the methodological orientationsCommonalities Differences

Expanded the methodological scope of CHAT in higher education settings, attempting to

develop or better understand context (rather than intervene in it directly)

Took divergent approaches to the use of CHAT (i.e. developmental versus heuristic)

and realised difference outcomes (improvement versus exploration)

Recognised the important relationships of individual and social agency in educational

practice

Placed differing emphasis on collective and individual understandings of social activity,

reflecting differing research focus

Revealed the significant expansive potential of boundary crossing in educational

development

Used distinctly different sources of data: primarily CHAT-informed action research

data/outcomes versus interview/observational data

Realised the significant value of historically framing inquiry and the power of culturally-

formed artefacts in shaping educational practices

One study had significant short-medium term effect (which proved difficult to

sustain), the other offered outcomes of a more prospective longer term significance

10

Broadening the methodological scope of CHAT researching These studies demonstrated the significance of

relational agency and boundary crossing as a mediating domains of social activity

Elevating participant-researcher function through elevated theoretical knowledge is challenging using CHAT, suggesting limitations in less interventionist methodologies

Understanding the relation between collective and individual learning was revealed as the different levels of the activity were explored. This makes it possible to demonstrate that objects are made sense of and used in different ways across different settings and planes.

11

Conclusion CHAT can successfully be used as an

explanatory tool in recognising individual, social, and contextual factors that shape the nature of learning and their instructional practices. The research design is context-bound.

CHAT can contribute to transform the activity studied using an interventionist methodology. Participants learn during interaction sessions mediated by new concepts.

Formative interventions can contribute to participants achieving elevated levels of agency

12

Reflection To what extent can formative interventions be

applied in a context where learning is the explicit goal?

How can the knowledge created in CHAT contribute to educational (school/university) development?

How is the expansive learning potential revealed in CHAT inspired studies?

13

Reflection (cont.)

How can we learn from studies of collective activity systems and from analyses of individual subjects’ development?

How can formative interventions contribute to individuals’ agency: participants’ ability and will to shape their activity systems?

14

Returning to foundations….?

According to Vygotsky (1997), “developing the problem and the method proceeds, if not in parallel, then in any case, by jointly moving forward. Finding the method is one of the most important tasks of the researcher. The method in such cases is simultaneously a prerequisite and product, a tool and a result of the research” (Collected Works 4, chapter two, p. 27).

15

ReferencesDaniels, H. (2008). Vygotsky and Research. Oxon: Routledge.

Darwin, S. (2011). Learning in activity: exploring the methodological potential of action research in activity theorising of social practice. Educational Action Research, 19(2), 215-229

Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practices: perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64-103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y., Saninno, A., Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture and Activity, 21(2,) 118-128.

Jonassen, D. (2000). Revisiting Activity Theory as a framework for Designing Student Centred Learning Environments. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Penuel, W. (2014). Emerging forms of formative intervention research in education. Mind, Culture and Activity, 21(2), 97-117.

Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). 'Vygotsky's Neglected Legacy': Cultural-Historical Activity Theory Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-231.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity Systems Analysis Methods: Understanding Complex Learning Environments. New York: Springer.

Vygotsky, L. (1997). In R. W. Rieber & J.Wollock (Eds). Collected Works, Volume. 4. New York: Plenum Press.

16

If you are interested in this ppt, please write to:

Malba Barahonamalba.barahona@anu.edu.au

Stephen Darwinstephen.darwin@anu.edu.au