formative interventions for collective concept formation : three cases of school change

www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto

FORMATIVE INTERVENTIONS FOR COLLECTIVE CONCEPT FORMATION:

THREE CASES OF SCHOOL CHANGE

Yrjö EngeströmCRADLE

University of HelsinkiLECTURE 4

JOHN DEWEY LECTURES 2013:Concept Formation in the Wild as Educational Challenge: An Activity-Theoretical Research Program

CREAD – Research Center on Education, Learning and Didactics

Brittany Institute of EducationUniversity of Western Brittany, Rennes, France

November 2013

www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 2

Historical change in school education

The traditional form of school education is not appropriate for the education of an students with increasingly heterogeneous backgrounds, interests, specific learning problems, and levels of achieved competences. This contradiction leads to aggravating problems of academic achievement, lack of motivation and school drop outs.


1 Strategy based on rationalization and hierarchical pressure to perform in the prevailing structure• partition of the content to small measurable wholes• frequent tests, high stakes testing• competition • economic rewards and punishments2 A strategy based on mediating the contradiction between unified instruction and students’ varying needs• teachers’ collaborative planning of instruction in autonomous

schools• continuous experimentation with instruments and cross-professional

collaboration in diagnosing learning problems• elaborate system of remedial teaching and support of students’

learning Sahlman,2010; Miettinen, 2013

Two policy responses, two strategies of school development


The Change Laboratory as a tool for the second strategy; a search for ways

to mediate the historically evolved inner contradictions in school activity

4

Center for Research on Activity, Development and Learning (CRADLE)

JAKOMÄKIMIDDLE SCHOOL INHELSINKI

SENIORSECONDARYSCHOOL INBOTSWANA

THE SCHOOLOF SELF-DETERMI-NATIONIN MOSCOW

FIRST STIMULI

SECOND STIMULI

GERM CELL

EMERGING CONCEPT

KEY ELEMENTS IN THREE CHANGE LABS

CONTRADICTION


CHANGE LABORATORY IN THE JAKOMÄKI MIDDLE SCHOOL IN HELSINKI, FINLAND

The Site• A middle school (Junior High School) in Helsinki, Finland• More than 30% of the students from recent immigrant or

refugee families• Jakomäki is a socially and economically disadvantaged

area in Helsinki; in 1997, the unemployment rate of Jakomäki was 25%, compared to 15% in the city as a whole; only 5% of the adult population of Jakomäki had higher education, compared to 21% in Helsinki as a whole

The Intervention• Change Laboratory: 11 weekly meetings in

the fall 1998 and winter 1999

• 26 teachers and research group– analyzed contradictions– constructed a vision – designed concrete steps toward the

vision for the activity system of the school

Contradictions in the activity system

Contradiction:

Apathetic students vs. energetic students

CHANGE LAB SESSION 3

Change Laboratory session #8 Teacher 7: What is strange is that when I teach them here in the daytime, nobody is interested and nobody cares. But when they come voluntarily in the evening, everything is fine and everyone cares. Yet the same faces are there. There is a huge contradiction there.

Contradiction:

Control vs. Trust

CHANGE LAB SESSION 3

-THE GRADUATING 9TH GRADE STUDENTS USED TO LEAVE THE SCHOOL WITH ONLY A REPORT CARD AND GRADES IN THEIR POCKET -THE TEACHERS FELT THAT THE STUDENTS SHOULD LEAVE WITH SOMETHING MORE TANGIBLE, WITH AN ACHIEVEMENT FOR WHICH THEY COULD BE PROUD OF -THE FINAL PROJECT IS A CROSS-SUBJECT PROJECT ON ANY RELEVANT TOPIC CHOSEN BY THE STUDENT-THE FINAL PROJECT IS TO BE COMPLETED DURING THE WINTER/SPRING SEMESTER OF THE LAST SCHOOL YEAR, AND A NUMBER OF SCHOOL HOURS IS SET ASIDE EXCLUSIVELY FOR WORK ON THE FINAL PROJECT-A TEACHER IS ASSIGNED TO GUIDE AND SUPERVISE EACH FINAL PROJECT; THE SUPERVISING TEACHER MAY OR MAY NOT BE A TEACHER RESPONSIBLE FOR TEACHING THE PARTICULAR SCHOOL SUBJECT CLOSEST TO THE TOPIC OF THE PROJECT-IF THE STUDENT WISHES HE OR SHE MAY ASK THAT THE FINAL PROJECT BE EVALUATED AS GROUNDS FOR RAISING THE STUDENT'S FINAL GRADE IN A SCHOOL SUBJECT -THE OUTCOMES OF THE FINAL PROJECTS ARE DISPLAYED IN AN EXHIBITION AT THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR

THE FINAL PROJECT

- THE TEACHERS OF IMMIGRANT STUDENTS IN PRACTICE AND IN DISCOURSE ANTICIPATED THE CHANGES; THE ADVANCED PRACTICES GAVE THESE TEACHERS A NEW PERSPECTIVE WHICH THEY REPEATEDLY VOICED IN THE CHANGE LABORATORY DISCUSSIONS AND FOLLOW-UP MEETINGS - EXAMPLE: IN THE LAST CHANGE LABORATORY SESSION, THE TEACHERS PRESENTED THEIR CHANGE PLANS TO A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HELSINKI SCHOOL BOARD; AS THE FINAL PROJECT WAS BEING PRESENTED, THIS OFFICIAL ASKED WHETHER THE PLAN WOULD INCLUDE IMMIGRANT STUDENTS; AS THE SPEAKER OF THE TASKFORCE (TEACHER 3) STARTED TO EXPLAIN THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE THE CASE, A TEACHER OF IMMIGRANT STUDENTS (TEACHER 10), NOT A MEMBER OF TASKFORCE, TOOK THE INITIATIVE: CHANGE LABORATORY SESSION #11SCHOOL BOARD OFFICIAL: I would still like to ask, i came to think about the immigrant students. Is it the idea that they, too, will do this final project?RESEARCHER: Has the taskforce thought about this?TEACHER 3: No. This is for ninth-graders…TEACHER 10: Personally i thought that at least my class will do this. In one way or another. One can use the students' special competencies in this work. There are skills which may not be so academic, but there are many such areas of competence that are terribly important.

VOICES OF IMMIGRANT STUDENTS’ TEACHERS AS SECOND STIMULUS

THE FINAL PROJECT

STUDENTS AS APATHETIC;INSTRUMENTS OF CONTROL

STUDENTS AS ENERGETIC;INSTRUMENTS OF TRUST

REMEDIATING THE CONTRADICTION WITH THE HELP OF THE FINAL PROJECT

SECOND STIMULUS:VOICES OF IMMIGRANT

STUDENTS’ TEACHERS: IT IS POSSIBLE…WE’VE DONE IT!

WORK TO IMPROVE GRADES

WORK ON A PERSONALLY

MEANINGFUL TOPIC

THE FINAL PROJECT AS A GERM CELL OF ENGAGED SCHOOLWORK

- IN THE SPRING OF 1999, 71% OF THE 9TH GRADERS COMPLETED THEIR FINAL PROJECTS; OF THOSE WHO COMPLETED THEM, 54% USED THEIR FINAL PROJECTS SUCCESSFULLY TO RAISE SOME OF THEIR GRADES

- IN 2000, 91% OF THE 9TH GRADERS COMPLETED THEIR FINAL PROJECTS, AND 65% OF THEM SUCCESSFULLY USED THE PROJECT TO RAISE THEIR GRADES

HOW THE CHANGE LABORATORY CHANGED TEACHERS’ CONCEPTUALIZATION OF STUDENTS





FIRST STIMULI

SECOND STIMULI

GERM CELL

EMERGING CONCEPT


CONTRADICTION

SIGNS OF STUDENT

APATHY AND TEACHER

DISTRUST

VOICES OF THE TEACHERS OF IMMIGRANT STUDENTS

THE FINAL PROJECT

STUDENTS AS APATHETIC VS. STUDENTS AS ENERGETIC;

INSTRUMENTS OF CONTROL VS.

INSTRUMENTS OF TRUST

STUDENTS AS CAPABLE

-Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. & Suntio, A. (2002). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.) Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspective on the future of education. London: Blackwell.

PUBLICATIONS ON THE JAKOMÄKI CHANGE LABORATORY


CHANGE LABORATORY IN THE MOLEFI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, BOTSWANA


THE SITE

• Location in the Mochudi village near the capital Gaborone in Botswana

• 1 800 students of of which 600 boarders • Many orphan students because of AIDS• A three-tack system based on number of science

subjects: single, double and triple sciences. Students are allocated to the tracks based on their science marks in Junior School

24


The Change Laboratory intervention

25

• Part of a broader project related to the use of ICTs at school.

• Participants: members of the school’s ICT group13 teachers representing different subjects (interested in but not specialized nor competent in the ICTs.

• Seven sessions, two sessions a week, september and october 2008:• analysis of current situation and history• development of three new practices to be

experimented


The first stimulus

26

Differences in students ”academic calibre”Researcher: What else (…) worries you? Participant 1: The course work plan is quite a challenge.(…) especially for the single science students.Researcher: And what kind of situation is created by this?Participant 1: Like she has explained earlier we have students of different capabilities and abilities. With the higher achievers its fine, but with these single science students (…) we are thinking that that could only be given to the triple sciencestudents and the higher doubles, then leave out the single (…)


Categorization of students and discrimination of single science students

27

Researcher: (…) [can you] ask [teachers] for extra help?Student 1: (…) sometimes you feel too afraid to ask.Student 3: Because you are going to feel intimidated?Student 1: You are going to feel intimidated.Student 3: Especially when you are doing single sciences they just think that they have to give priority to the triple sciences and maybe double sciences, and if you say that you are single sciences, they just say hey you aggg.Student 1: Later, see you later.---Student 3: They make extra lessons for the triple sciences Student 1: But not for the single.


Discrimination of single science students

Participant 2 (Second session) There is something that I picked from the video clip there that somehow doing the single science limits these students when they get to tertiary especially when it comes to science, if that’s true, then we have to do something about it. Because at the end of the day they are here they have their own aspirations, they want to be pilots like they say and may be doing other science-related courses and if us here in the school we still have a system whereby we have single science, it puts a majority of our students on the disadvantage side.


The contradiction

29


Second stimuli

• getting more information about individual students’ problems, needs and interests; a dialogue with students about these

• supporting students’ study planning


Dialogue with individual students’ about their problems, needs and interests and supporting their planning of studies

Great number of students

Example of group work in the ”developmentaldialogue” method


Mediating the contradiction with the help of ’dialogical study planningpractice ’ and ’co-teaching’


Emerging concept

Both the co-teaching model and the model of dialogical study planning contained the idea of more individualized learning and support of students throughboth teacher collaboration and student collaboration

More about the case: Virkkunen, Newnhamn, Nleya, & Engestöm, (2012): Breaking the vicious circle of categorizing. Learning, Culture, and Interaction 1, (3-4),183-192.





FIRST STIMULI

SECOND STIMULI

GERM CELL

EMERGING CONCEPT


CONTRADICTION

SIGNS OF STUDENT

APATHY AND TEACHER

DISTRUST


THE FINAL PROJECT




STUDENTS AS CAPABLE

HETEROGENEOUS STUDENT GROUPS

VS. UNIFORM MASSTEACHING &

STUDENT CATEGORIZATION

PROBLEMS OFSTUDENT LEARNING

AND MOTIVATION

DIALOGUE WITH STUDENTS

ABOUT THEIR NEEDS AND PROBLEMS

DIALOGICAL INDIVIDUALIZED

STUDY PLANNING,

CO-TEACHING

INDIVIDUALIZED SUPPORT THROUGH

STUDENT AND TEACHER

COLLABORATION


CHANGE LABORATORY IN THE SCHOOLOF SELF-DETERMINATION

IN MOSCOW

Description of the research area

The school of Self Determination”• One of famous “author’s pedagogy schools” • Strong democratic traditions (since 1970)

Deepening crisis in last several years:• Loosing the efficiency of pedagogy methods• The educational results are falling down, • Popularity amongst parents is decreasing, • Reputation in local community is getting worse.

It causes tensions and conflicts among the colleagues, they feel the threat of a collapse of the team

In the situation of the reform they need to reconsider the concept of the school and to find the way to overcome the crisis

Change Laboratory intervention

• 24 teachers and administrators of the school, represented all the departments and informal groups(оf 65 members of the school team)

• 10 group meetings on the concept formation were organized twice a month from October 2012 till April 2013

• Prepared mirror materials (quotations from preliminary interviews with teachers, parents and children, videotaped fragments of work processes, etc.)

38

The list of the current problems (1st session)1. The rate of change outside does not match the rate

of reaction of school.2. We cannot set the requirement bar for children

and make it clear and significant for them.3. The school and kindergarten have different

problems: how to find the points of contact? 4. Collegiality in management does not work.

Different teachers insisted on different words.5. Mismatch in official and real duties, confusion in

sharing of responsibilities. 6. Lowering of level of requirements to ourselves.7. The decline of quality of education: lack of

competitiveness, lack of efforts, “favorable atmosphere”.

8. The collective has no formulated priorities of developments.

9. Lack of system of interacting of all agents of educational process (teachers, administration, parents, teachers).

10. The lowering of requirements to each other for the sake of saving of kind relationships.

11. Vagueness of the general idea of self-identity of the school.

12. New wage system leads to discord insist of

stimulating of development of the school.13. Democracy has gone.14. Inefficient of investment of personal efforts.15. The opacity and unclearness of recourses available

in the school and possibilities of their using.16. The internal law space does not work anymore.17. Relationships with parents: how to build the

collaboration?18. Decline of teacher’s agency leads to decline of

children’s agency.19. Lack of conditions for development of teachers.20. We don’t understand how to use external changing

for our benefits and don’t even try to do it.21. The weakening of collaboration with children in

developing of thee school.22. The school encourages a freebie.23. We cannot leave or reject anything.24. Lack of methodical work in the school.

Later the two more problems were added:25. The renunciation of assessments no longer be

compensated by other tools, it doesn’t work as a tool.

26. When we say “our problems”, non of us has in mind himself (herself).

39

84

2

323

1 20

10

6

115 13

1417

19

7 15

2421

22

16 12

18

9

The mapping of the problems

40

Timeline making (2nd session)

1970 1974 1981 1985 1988 1998 2001 2003 2007 2010 2012

The School History

The Country History

Historical research

!

1970 1979 1985 1991 1993 2000 2008 2012

Two long-term cycles (1970 – 1985, 1988 – 2012) of the school activity with the typical stages (Rise – Flourish – Decline – Crisis) have common features

Temporal political climate (increasing – decreasing of the State pressure) influenced on the school development

When the school turned from development of its activity to “conservation” strategy, it led to decline and following inner crisis

!The correspondence between school and country history phases

OBJECT«SCHOOL FOR ALL» vs.

SCHOOL FOR KINDRED SPIRITS

INSTRUMENTS COMFORT – REQUIREMENTS

SUBJECTSTABILITY vs. DEVELOPMENT

RULESFREEDOM OF CREATIVITY –

ABIDANCE BY RULES

OUTCOMEINDEPENDENT CULTURED PERSON –

SUCCESSFUL PASSING EXAMINATIONS

COMMUNITYEVERYBODY REQUIRES EDUCATIONAL QUALITY -

QUALITY COMPREHENDS IN DIFFERENT WAYS

DIVISION OF LABORPERSONAL INITIATIVE–

COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

Contradictions

Overcoming the contradiction in the objectThe group elaborated the germ cell model of the future school, overcoming the contradiction in the object of activity:

EMERGING CONCEPT

OPENNESS COMMONALITY OF VALUES

REMEDIATING THE CONTRADICTION WITH THE HELP OF AN EMERGING NEW CONCEPT

COMMONALITY OF VALUESOPENNESS

THE GERM CELL OF A NEW CONCEPT FOR THE SCHOOL OF SELF-DETERMINATION

OPEN EDUCATIONAL-CULTURAL CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

different entrances to the school different exits from the schoolat different levels from different places at different levels to different places selection of the pupils (families) individual learning trajectories

Space of choices for self-determination,individual ways of

education

Local families

Kindergarten

Choice by values

Children make choices to come in or out

Partnership with educational institutes, parents, local communities

Diversity of ways

for graduates

The new concept of the school:Open school oriented to freedom of choices





FIRST STIMULI

SECOND STIMULI

GERM CELL

EMERGING CONCEPT


CONTRADICTION

SIGNS OF STUDENT

APATHY AND TEACHER

DISTRUST


THE FINAL PROJECT




STUDENTS AS CAPABLE

HETEROGENEOUS STUDENT GROUPS

VS. UNIFORM MASSTEACHING &

STUDENT CATEGORIZATION

PROBLEMS OFSTUDENT LEARNING

AND MOTIVATION

DIALOGICAL (INDIVIDUAL)

STUDY PLANNING,

CO-TEACHING

DIALOGICAL (INDIVIDUAL)

STUDY PLANNING,

CO-TEACHING

INDIVIDUALIZED SUPPORT THROUGH

STUDENT AND TEACHER

COLLABORATION

OPENNESS VS. COMMONALITY

OF VALUES

SIGNS OF LOSS OF SHARED

OBJECT

OPENNESS

COMMONALITY OF VALUES

OPEN EDUCATIONAL-

CULTURAL CENTER

formative interventions for collective concept formation : three cases of school change

Documents

school activity

jakomki middle school

change laboratory session

activity system contradiction

apathetic students

support of students

change labscontradictionwww

fiyliopisto2historical