Learning actions, objects and types of interaction: A methodological analysis of expansive learning among pre-service teachers
Main Article Content
Abstract
The paper analyzes a collaborative learning process among Finnish pre-service teachers planning their own learning in a self-regulated way. The study builds on cultural-historical activity theory and the theory of expansive learning, integrating for the first time an analysis of learning actions and an analysis of types of interaction. We examine the theory of expansive learning as a possible conceptual and methodological framework for understanding this type of collaborative learning. The task of the paper is primarily methodological. We believe that cultural-historical activity theory needs to be turned into methods and procedures of systematic empirical analysis, and this article examines one such methodological solution. At the same time, we aim to uncover some substantive dynamics of expansive learning in collaborative teacher education oriented at open-ended problems and tasks. An almost complete expansive mini-cycle of learning actions appeared in the pre-service teachers’ meeting. However, an analysis of the steps of formation of the shared object revealed a more complex iterative process. As the expansive learning process moved epistemically from questioning to analysis, modeling and implementation, it also moved interactionally from coordination to cooperation and communication. Yet there was no mechanical correspondence between specific learning actions and specific types of interaction. Transitions and disturbances were crucial for the dynamics of expansive learning. A full assessment of a potentially expansive mini-cycle of learning calls for extending the time scale of the analysis.
Article Details
FLR adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Common License (BY-NC-ND). That is, Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors with, however, first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
References
Bruner, J. S. (1974). Beyond the information given. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In H. Spada, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Rantavuori, J., & Kerosuo, H. (2013). Expansive Learning in a Library: Actions, Cycles and Deviations from Instructional Intentions. Vocations and Learning, 6 (1), 81–106. doi:10.1007/s12186-012-9089-6
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2012). Whatever Happened to Process Theories of Learning? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 45–56. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.002
Eteläpelto, A., Littleton, K., Lahti, J., & Wirtanen, S. (2005). Students’ accounts of their participation in an intensive long-term learning community. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 183–207. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.011
Fichtner, B. (1984). Co-ordination, co-operation and communication in the formation of theoretical concepts in instruction. In M. Hedegaard, P. Hakkarainen, & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Learning and teaching on a scientific basis: Methodological and epistemological aspects of the activity theory of learning and teaching. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitet, Psykologisk institut.
Foot, K. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practical theory: Illuminating the development of a conflict monitoring network. Communication Theory, 11(1), 56–83. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00233.x
Goldman, S. R. (2014). Perspectives on Learning: Methodologies for Exploring Learning Processes and Outcomes. Frontline Learning Research, 2(4), 46–55. doi:10.14786/flr.v2i4.117
Greeno, J. G. (2011). A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (Vol. 1, pp. 41–71). New York: Springer.
Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 128-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.
Kärkkäinen, M. (1999). Teams as breakers of traditional work practices: A longitudinal study of planning and implementing curriculum units in elementary school teacher teams. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
de Lange, T. (2011). Formal and non-formal digital practices: Institutionalizing transactional learning spaces in a media classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(3), 251–275. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.549827
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812–819. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.001
Nilsson, M. (2003). Transformation through integration: An activity theoretical analysis of school development as integration of child care institutions and elementary school. Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology.
Raeithel, A. (1983). Tätigkeit, arbeit und praxis. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Saari, E. (1995). Voidaanko tutkimusryhmiä perustaa? Tapaustutkimus Valtion teknillisen tutkimuskeskuksen metallilaboratorion ryhmäkokeilusta vuosina 1989-1991. [Could the research groups be founded? A case study of Metals Laboratory’s team experimentation in 1989-1991 at the Technical Research Centre of Finland] VTT Tiedotteita 1627. Espoo: VTT Offsetpaino.
Schmittau, J., & Morris, A. (2004). The development of algebra in the elementary mathematics curriculum of V.V. Davydov. The Mathematics Educator, 8(1), 60–87.
Seppänen, L. (2004). Learning challenges in organic vegetable farming: An activity-theoretical study of on-farm practices. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Institute for Rural Research and Training.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X027002004
Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.