Settings of Field-Practice Experience and Placements

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

The first generation of CHAT

There have been a number of reviews of the development of the different generations of CHAT from Vygotsky, through to Leontiev and up to and including Engeström (Dafermos, 2015; Foot, 2014; Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2012; Roth & Lee, 2007; Stetsenko, 2005). The way the history of CHAT is presented demonstrates both the influence of the personal narratives of the individual theorists, and the political concerns of the period. For example, Smagorinsky (2012a) discusses Vygotsky’s humble beginnings as a Jewish scholar who was very much on the margins of Russian academia until after the Russian revolution, when religion based restrictions were lifted allowing him to study and hold more senior positions.
There was also much discussion of the significance of Vygotsky’s work in defectology in a related text (Smagorinsky, 2012b), and how this was a prime influence on his thinking around signs and symbols. However, shortly before his untimely death due to ongoing health issues, a number of Vygotsky’s colleagues were arrested signalling the likelihood of his own impending imprisonment (Smagorinsky, 2012a; Stetsenko & Arievitch, 2014).
The first generation of activity theory derives from Vygotsky and his discussion of the cultural mediation of the individual by the collective cultural tools and signs, a perspective which focuses on the individualisation of the subject. According to Vygotsky’s cultural law of development, individuals first notice phenomena in the social world, this then becomes internalised which gives the individual control and direction over his/her own behaviour. An obvious example, and one much discussed by Vygotsky is the role of language. Newcomers, or children learn their first language through observation, imitation, and interaction with more knowledgeable others, typically their parents. As active participants, the child not only develops an understanding of language as a means of communication, but also language as a referential system, meaning that in the process of learning language, the child also learns the conceptual knowledge valued by the community in which the individual is embedded.
Language mediates the child’s way of engaging with the world, and not only gives them the capacity to refer to objects which are not present, but also the capacity to regulate his/her own behaviour. In such a way, Vygotsky suggests that the individual higher mental functions such as memory, attention and even perception are constituted by people external to the individual, and reflective of the community in which the individual is embedded. Holland and Lachicotte (2007) extend this understanding and suggest identity as an example of a higher order mental function as being acquired.
In first generation activity theory, the relationship between the subject, object and the mediating artefact is captured in the very simple diagram below (see Figure 1). For example, in the situation depicted below, the subject is the teacher, the object is the child. The relationship between the teacher and the child is mediated by the cultural tools and signs of the settings. If, for example, the teacher is in a Montessori centre, then the teacher’s interaction with the child will be mediated by both the tools of the Montessori centre, which may refer to physical, material objects or the signs which may refer to ideas or philosophies.
This notion that a human act is not just a response to a stimulus but is mediated by a cultural component represents Vygotsky’s attempt to provide a materialist view of human action, the significance of this move was not lost on Engeström (1996), who posited: The insertion of cultural artifacts [sic] into human actions was revolutionary in that the basic unit of analysis now overcame the split between Cartesian individual and the untouchable social structure. The individual could no longer be understood without his or her cultural means; and the society could no longer be understood without the agency of individuals who use and produced artefacts. (p. 132) After some time, the teacher will internalise the tools and signs of the community, and as a result, not only is change effected on the object, but the change will also influence the subject. However, the focus of much of the early Vygotskian work is on the process of internalisation or appropriation as it was later termed, rather than externalisation and making a contribution, which is the focus of much of the later CHAT literature

Appropriating Cultural Tools of the Setting

The appropriation of cultural tools refers to the students’ internalisation of ways of thinking about teaching and their use of the pedagogical tools of the different settings. Reflecting on the transcript from the second interview with Hong, it was obvious she was still making sense of early childhood education. She had engaged with the mediating tools of the centre, including Te Whāriki, the centre policies, and the centre’s free-play philosophy. Although Hong could see the teaching and learning that happened, she felt removed from being able to imitate that herself. The tension that existed was between Hong and the tools. One of the principles of Te Whāriki is “relationships.” This speaks to the importance in early childhood of creating responsive and reciprocal relationships with the children. However, at first, Hong felt that her language skills were not at a sufficient level to be able to interact with the older children confidently. While supervising the children, Hong was preoccupied with the potential risks she saw in the environment, such as the children pushing into each other playfully. But because she felt the children would not understand her accent, she was reluctant to raise her voice.
Although there is a need to have high levels of professional knowledge regarding Te Whāriki, Leo’s discussion of Te Whāriki seldom moved beyond popularly cited themes and interpretations based on following children’s interests, the importance of the child’s cultural background, and the consideration of the child’s learning disposition. Leo seldom spoke about his academic studies or engaged in the formal online discussion forums; and he gave increased importance to the practice aspect of being a student teacher. His interest was in connecting with the other staff, sharing observations and monitoring their interactions with children to inform his own practice. Much of his discussion revealed a relationship focus on his teaching, with little mention of the introduction of subject knowledge or scientific principles.
The development of student teachers’ conceptual knowledge has been the focus of a number of studies from Smagorinsky. One such study suggested a taxonomy of different levels of appropriation by student teachers of the theoretical concepts of the semantic field Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003). In this regard, it seemed that Leo had largely stagnated at the pseudo level and this was supported by the inclusion of a short passage in his personal teaching philosophy saying how he admired the Montessori method. The following confused paragraph appeared in Leo’s teaching portfolio as his personal teaching philosophy:
I believe in Montessori’s theory on teaching children because this teaching method can help to educate and raise children to develop their fullest potential. I will apply Montessori’s theory which focuses on children’s play with the goal to increase the level of socialisation, concentration and attention which can benefit their real-life experience. (Leo: First field practice: Portfolio)
Leo shared that he included this homage to Montessori after the first academic course where the students were introduced to a number of different early childhood education teaching and learning philosophies. Although Leo was situated in a free-play mainstream setting, and he was questioned both by his associate teacher, and the visiting lecturer, about this inclusion, he was reluctant to remove it from his teaching philosophy. The same paragraph was evident in later iterations of the philosophy, slightly modified and including the sentences:
“Montessori’s teaching methods can also foster children’s motivation and self-discipline. Towards achieving my goal of teaching children, I will commit myself as a teacher to take care of them with love, care and patience” (Leo: Field-practice portfolio: Personal philosophy – third placement). This addition of dispositions of love, care and patience could reflect Leo’s under 2s placement. Leo spoke about Montessori as being an international brand which is very popular in Asia; in this context, the inclusion of Montessori seems to be an “affiliation move” (Warford, 2011, p. 255), perhaps considering the potential for such “capital” with future employers. When discussing his plans for the future, Leo discussed looking for work in Singapore with his Japanese girlfriend, if unable to find an ECE position in New Zealand, since Singapore offered a cultural compromise for them both.

READ THE SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLING SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students .
Professional Teacher Identity in ECE in New Zealand .
Networked Learning
Context of the Study
Organisation of the Thesis.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Perspectives on Learner Identity
Narrative and dialogical perspectives.
Postmodern perspective.
Ethical perspective
Summary
Vygotsky and the Vygotskian Project .
Perezhivanie and emotions.
Zone of proximal development.
Identity as leading activity.
Summary.
A Review of Key Studies
Experiences of identity shift.
Communities of practice. .
On field practice.
CALD student teachers.
Summary. .
Chapter Summary .
CHAPTER 3: CHAT AND THE SUBJECT
Introduction
Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)
The first generation of CHAT
The second generation of CHAT
Third-generation activity theory.
CHAT and Subjectivity
Transformative Activist Stance (TAS)
Application to Study.
Chapter Summary
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Research Design
Qualitative approach.
Theoretical considerations. .
Ontological considerations.
Epistemological consideration
Case Study .
Researcher’s Role: Reflexivity
Maintaining Trustworthiness.
Ethical Considerations
Chapter Summary
CHAPTER 5: METHODS
Introduction .
Recruiting Participants for the Study
Participants.
Study context.
Settings of Field-Practice Experience and Placements
Mainstream settings.
Montessori settings.
Observations
Document analysis.
Data Analysis
Chapter Summary
CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS .
CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION PART 1
CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSIONS – Part II
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION .
APPENDICES