- Email: [email protected]
The legacy of Productive Disciplinary Engagement
International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Educational Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures
Commentary
The legacy of Productive Disciplinary Engagement Kristiina Kumpulainen * Department of Teacher Education, P.O. Box 9, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 8 July 2013 Accepted 17 July 2013 Available online 15 August 2013
This theme issue examines the possibilities and realities that regulate learning opportunities for students and teachers in diverse science classrooms harnessing the design principles of Productive Disciplinary Engagement (PDE). I shall begin my commentary by situating the PDE framework within the discourses of 21st century learning and education. Next, I shall consider the rationale and goals of the PDE framework and then move on to discussing the sociocultural embodiment of the framework in the case studies discussed. I shall finish my commentary by considering the educational significance of the PDE framework and by visioning the next generation of research around PDE. A call for longitudinal studies around PDE is proposed that are able to illuminate the psychological, social and cultural practices of learning communities over time, evidencing learners’ changing relationships to learning, disciplinary knowledge, their social relationships as well as to schooling in general. ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sociocultural framework Disciplinary engagement Science education 21st century learning
In this theme issue we are zooming in to the possibilities and realities that regulate learning opportunities for students and teachers in science classrooms harnessing the design principles of Productive Disciplinary Engagement (PDE). As these papers clearly show, the documented practices are embedded in socio-culturally framed eco-systems of the classrooms and schools of which dynamics support and also challenge the realization of the intended goals of the framework. The empirical case studies discussed provide researchers and educators with lenses through which to examine and understand the social construction of science teaching and learning within and across diverse classrooms. Rather than providing normative guidelines, this theme issue makes visible the sociocultural practices of science education based on PDE, including the nature of students’ engagement and meaning-making processes in disciplinary work. Studies of this nature are likely to open up dialog with their audience and potentially further develop students’ learning opportunities in science education and beyond. I shall begin my commentary by situating the PDE framework within the discourses of 21st century learning and education. Next, I shall consider the rationale and goals of the PDE framework and then move on to discussing the sociocultural embodiment of the framework in the case studies discussed. I shall finish my commentary by considering the educational significance of the PDE framework and by envisioning the next generation of research around PDE.
1. PDE framework and 21st century learning requirements This theme issue is situated in space and time during which public discourses in many countries are questioning whether existing education systems are able to support learners’ growth for life and work in the 21st century (e.g. Dumont, Istance, & Benavides, 2010). These concerned discourses are no longer generated by research communities in education and learning
* Tel.: +358 50 3185221; fax: +358 9 191 29611. E-mail address: kristiina.kumpulainen@helsinki.fi. 0883-0355/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.006
216
K. Kumpulainen / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
sciences, but also by practitioners working in different fields of education and beyond, working life representatives, educational policy makers, parents and, not the least, by learners themselves. Rich and vivid discourses about the future of education appear to have generated a global movement in which individuals and collectives in both public and private sectors are constructing roadmaps, methods and tools for education transformation that would better respond to the realities and learning requirements of this century. Particularly important skills and competencies to be addressed more strongly in curriculum and classroom practices include critical thinking skills, problemsolving skills, collaboration and communication skills, new literacy skills, creative skills as well as learning to learn and life skills (e.g. Trilling & Fadel, 2009). The significance of creating pedagogical spaces that support learners’ active and productive engagement in disciplinary learning is also widely recognized (Brown, 1997; Engle & Conant, 2002; Ford & Forman, 2006). But how can educational transformation happen so that it really touches the lives of every learner, equipping learners with knowledge, skills and competencies so that they can thrive in their lives and contribute to the common good of our society? Despite educational investments and reform efforts, we know how challenging it is to make a sustained change on prevailing teaching and learning practices based on more conventional models of education (Etelapelto, Littleton, Lahti, & Wirtanen, 2005; Fischer, 2011; Sarason, 1990; Thomson & Hall, 2008; Tyack & Cuban, 1997). This theme issue, with its rich, empirically grounded research studies, elaborates on a potential framework, Productive Disciplinary Engagement (PDE) that clearly has a lot to contribute to the transformation of teaching and learning practices at this historical point of dynamic change. Although the articles of the theme issue do not directly address the ‘21st century rhetoric on learning and education’, it feels worthwhile to contextualize all this important work within this societal discourse. In this way, we are able to extend our thinking about the legacy of PDE framework not only for advancing Productive Disciplinary Engagement in science but, more broadly, for its contribution to guiding the transformation of educational practices into the 21st century. The design principles of the PDE framework, namely, learning to pose intellectual problems, taking authority in meaning making and learning, being accountable to others, social norms and practices of schooling, classroom communities and the disciplines as well as being able to harness all relevant resources in the learning process are clearly important skills on their own right. They are not only subsidiary means to construct disciplinary learning but important learning dispositions that strongly resonate with the overall learning requirements of our society. 2. What is unique about PDE framework? Research in education and in the learning sciences has already generated a rich knowledge base on human learning and development (e.g. Bransford et al., 2006; Brown, 1997; Ford & Forman, 2006; Sawyer, 2006). Research has also been able to develop education principles, models and pedagogies for supporting active and meaningful learning in different classrooms and disciplines, and among different learners. Collaborative learning, problem-based learning, inquiry learning, learning by design, interdisciplinary learning, authentic learning, learning in a community of learners, and expansive learning are among the many pedagogical heuristics that have been documented in the research literature. Among others, these approaches have evidenced a shift from teacher-centered toward learner-centered approaches. These approaches have also evidenced a shift from individual orientation toward socially oriented notions of constructive processes (Brown, 1997; Hakkarainen, 2010; Sawyer, 2006). Despite the potential of these learner-centered pedagogies, research has also clearly shown that the educational value of most of these approaches depends on engaging students in the pursuit of complex problems, sharing and creating of knowledge, breaking boundaries between formal and informal as well as between different communities of practice and promoting the development of learner agency (Hakkarainen, 2010). Research has also shown that in order for these pedagogies to be productive their success is strongly related to curriculum, instruction, assessment practices, teacher’s professionalism, and the overall teaching and learning cultures of classrooms and schools (Kumpulainen & Renshaw, 2007; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). We have also learned that research knowledge does not easily transfer to practice (Sabelli & Dede, 2001). Consequently, although these pedagogies can also be found to flourish in some schools and classrooms, they are more like ‘beautiful exceptions’ rather than a common practice. Also the fact that the field is rich and diverse has made it difficult for teachers to implement the heuristics and their specific scripts in their unique classrooms in systematic ways. Unlike many pedagogical frameworks and models based on specific scripts, the PDE framework was originally created to provide guiding principles for both designing and understanding learning environments that seek to foster students’ deep involvement and productive engagement in disciplinary work. The framework was developed as a response to the need to bring coherence and unity to the many existing design principles for creating effective learning environments with a specific interest to mathematics and science classrooms (Engle, 2011; Engle & Conant, 2002). The core concepts of the framework, i.e., engagement, disciplinary engagement and Productive Disciplinary Engagement as well as the principles for fostering PDE, i.e. problematizing, authority, accountability, and resources create a common frame of reference for educators and researchers to explore and interpret teaching and learning practices within and across disciplines, classrooms and their sociocultural settings. These core concepts and principles form the base line for collectively making sense and for further developing learning environments. In all, the design principles of the PDE framework provide both structure and flexibility in their implementation into pedagogical practice. This is likely to lead to rich understandings about the possibilities and challenges of this framework in transforming traditional pedagogical practices and students’ learning opportunities, as also evidenced in this publication.
K. Kumpulainen / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
217
3. The sociocultural embodiment of the PDE framework in science classrooms The sociocultural learning theories situate learning within the interplay of micro and macro level processes by examining social activity in its cultural and historical context (Alexander, 2008; Cole, 1996; Daniels, 2001; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). Via their different scales and levels of analysis, the studies discussed in this theme issue also recognize the dynamic relationships that exist between individuals, collectives, and cultures mediating the social practices of science teaching and learning. The sociocultural approach holds a conception of the learner as a cultural and historical subject embedded within, and constituted by, a network of social relationships and interactions. It is the changing nature of these relationships and types of participation in cultural activities that explain learning and development (Kumpulainen & Renshaw, 2007). In viewing learning as the process of becoming an active participant in various communities of practice, the sociocultural framework stresses the role of cultural and semiotic tools as mediators of social interaction and modes of thinking (Vygotsky, 1962). Semiotic tools constructed and re-constructed in collective activity create the grounds for meaning making, transforming the human capacity to act and further develop cultural contexts (Wertsch, 1991). Within the framework of the sociocultural approach, learning is a participation process in collective activities from peripheral to central engagement (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). The process of becoming an active member and a legitimate participant in a community involves particular ways of acting and knowing as defined by the culture in question. These include, for example, modes of inquiry, ways of communicating, conventions for presenting ideas, procedures for verifying knowledge and claims, as well as values and beliefs (Wertsch, 1991). The role of the teacher is seen as scaffolding learners’ engagement in cultural activities (Rogoff, 1990). This involves providing learners with appropriate support and tools to participate and make meaning in collective activity. The teacher’s instructional activities can include directing attention, monitoring ongoing performance, and adjusting the degree of assistance depending on the learner’s level of engagement (Kovalainen, Kumpulainen, & Vasama, 2001). Collective meaning making requires that there is space for diverse expertise and interpretations that are open to challenge and reconsideration. From this perspective, expertise is seen as a dynamic entity that is distributed over the community – not only within the classroom but ideally also with authentic expert communities (Brown, 1997; Hakkarainen, 2010). Next, I shall contextualize these core notions of the sociocultural framework with the articles of this theme issue. The study of Xenia Meyer elaborates on the changing nature of learners’ engagement in the discipline of science, illuminating the process of learning as participation from peripheral to central while the students engaged in authentic inquiry-based investigation in collaboration with practicing scientists. The paper proposes that these students experienced PDE at both initial and deeper levels, where students’ initial PDE in scientific activities prepared them for deeper PDE at a more discipline-specific level. Here, the students’ authority and accountability were fostered by the appropriation of scientific authority and accountability that led to students’ deeper engagement in scientific activities. The study of Ellice Forman and Michael Ford enriches our understanding of the ways in which students’ science learning proceeds from intermental level to intramental level. With their empirical data they show how the interpersonal processes of constructing and critiquing precedes and fosters its intrapersonal appropriation. That is, understanding and anticipating critique (disciplinary accountability) is a logical and developmental precursor for achieving disciplinary authority for both scientists and students. Integrating sense making and articulating with persuasion is, thus, seen as crucial to engaging students in authentic disciplinary practices. Forman and Ford also identify sociocultural constraints that mediate students’ argumentation practices and learning opportunities. These constraints have to do with the institutional and social norms and expectations that typically exist in classrooms. Their study demonstrates that students were not accustomed to being held to disciplinary standards, critiquing their peers or being critiqued by them. This finding confirms the important role of culture in mediating learning opportunities in classrooms (Alexander, 2008; Kumpulainen & Renshaw, 2007). The other two studies discussed in the theme issue illuminate powerfully the learning-culture interface that mediates teaching and learning practices in classrooms. In addition, the papers pinpoint the agentic role of the teacher in supporting learners’ productive engagement in disciplinary learning. The paper of Patrice Venturini and Chantal Amade-Escot zooms into a French science classroom and focuses on the ways in which an experienced teacher deals with an open investigation process and adapts it to traditional physics lessons. Their study reveals how curriculum requirements as well as the organization of time in a French secondary school constrained the implementation of PDE in this classroom. The study of Eduardo F. Mortimer and Angelica Oliveira de Araujo situated in a Brazilian high school chemistry classroom further confirms the pivotal role of culture in regulating teaching and learning practices. Their study reveals how the curriculum, testing program, and the overall educational culture, its practices, norms and values contest the application of PDE framework in the science classroom. As the authors conclude, the transformation of science education practices requires holistic change that cannot be achieved by one teacher alone. 4. Educational significance of PDE The dominant pedagogies of schooling do not often provide students with diverse and rich possibilities for becoming productively engaged in learning (Kumpulainen & Lipponen, 2010). The learning practices are reduced to acquisition of new
218
K. Kumpulainen / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
knowledge and skills, whereas students’ deep disciplinary learning and agency are inadequately fostered (Brown & Renshaw, 2006; Ford & Forman, 2006; Tyack & Cuban, 1997). The studies reported in this theme issue highlight the ways in which the application of the PDE framework can potentially expand the conventional learning practices in science classrooms. The social construction of PDE provided the students with multiple and diverse positions of authority. Knowledge and knowing were therefore not only associated with the teacher, the curriculum, or outside experts, but rather with everyone participating. In other words, the students were seen by themselves and by others as knowledgeable and committed participants whose identities were variable, multivocal, and interactive (Ce´sar, 2007; Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). The students were also held accountable for producing thoughtful and justified opinions and arguments that would contribute to authentic problem solving and learning. The students’ accountability to peers, the teacher and experts representing disciplinary communities was also reflected in the ways in which meanings were negotiated and what counted as knowledge and knowing in these science classroom communities (Holland et al., 1998). In addition, the PDE framework allowed researchers to appreciate instruction that provided students with opportunities to develop interpersonal relationships and to learn with and from others. Whereas in more conventional settings, the expert community is mainly positioned as disconnected from students’ lives and school activities, here the students were found to build and connect to a network of relevant others in their learning practices. Thus, these classrooms provided supportive grounds for what Edwards, among others, has called relational agency (Edwards, 2005; Edwards & D’Arcy, 2004; Edwards & Mackenzie, 2005). The PDE constructed into being in the classrooms reported in these articles also appeared to foster the students’ conceptual agency that entails progressive actions toward deeper disciplinary engagement (Greeno, 2006; Pickering, 1995). In building on the students’ observations and experiences, the teachers supported the students in thinking with, rather than about, their experiences and views (Kumpulainen, Vasama, & Kangassalo, 2003). In addition, multiple cultural resources were used in collective meaning making, including various kinds of expert voices. However, rather than treating these as authoritative voices (Bakhtin, 1981; Scott, Mortimer, & Aguiar, 2006), the classroom community constructed counterarguments in juxtaposing different voices against each other and against students’ own experiences and observations. The third form of agency made possible in the social context of PDE was transformative agency. The students exercised transformative agency as they were able to break away from the traditional ‘‘taken-for-granted’’ patterns of activities (Engestro¨m, 2008), take initiatives, and contribute to authentic problem solving (Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011). At the same time, the students were also taking part in co-constructing the cultural practices of what it means to make meaning, participate, and learn in science classrooms. Students’ transformative agency was illuminated, for example, in the study of Xenia Meyer on students’ changing nature of engagement in science learning as the result of extended opportunities to act authoritatively and accountably. Here, the students engaged in authentic scientific inquiry in collaboration with practicing scientists, thus their learning practices were extended beyond the typical science classroom. In this study, we can see how the students’ communication of scientific knowledge became a practice of authority in PDE and the justification of findings became one of accountability. In addition, the study of Ellice Forman and Michael Ford sheds light on the potential of PDE in creating opportunities for students’ transformative agency. In their study, we can identify the students being engaged in questioning, critiquing, arguing and articulating scientific constructs with persuasion. These are all important elements of and for transformative agency mediated by opportunities to act authoritative and accountably (Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011; Rajala, Hilppo¨, Lipponen, & Kumpulainen, 2013). The studies of this theme issue also demonstrate that enacting the PDE framework in classroom communities requires agency on the part of the teachers (Edwards, 2005; Edwards & D’Arcy, 2004; Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011). In particular, pursuing a transformative stance to existing pedagogical practice may involve taking a course of action which is not shared or valued by the existing school culture, resulting in conflicts and contradictions (Brown & Renshaw, 2000). However, questioning current practices and seeing alternative futures are pivotal pre-requisites in transforming social practices (Engestro¨m & Sannino, 2010). PDE also involves connecting learning across settings, communities and time. For instance, in order to connect learning and teaching to expert communities outside school, teachers and schools need to build partnerships and networks. Building networks and partnerships also requires new competences from teachers, such as being able to engage in multi-professional collaboration (Kumpulainen et al., 2010). Moreover, the transformation of education calls for learning tasks that are authentic, current and complex real-life problems (Hakkarainen, 2010). As the papers of this theme issue illuminate, these kinds of learning environments can have the potential to expand the forms of accountability by expanding the requirements for engagement and bringing in new audiences with whom students pose questions, share and discuss their observations, opinions and reflections. In these situations, students are likely to see the meaningfulness and applicability of their learning within and beyond the school. In a conventional school, knowledge is usually to be remembered and reproduced instead of used as a tool to solve problems (Engestro¨m, 2008). Indeed, in order to determine the usefulness of an idea, it is essential to test it in practice (Dewey, 1910). When doing so, new audiences respond, thus providing students with feedback about the feasibility of their ideas. In essence, the culture of learning mediated by PDE calls for ‘‘under-designing for emergent behavior’’ (Fischer, 2011), that is, it leaves room for creativity, renegotiations and surprises. Addressing authentic problems and tasks requires the teacher and students to work with open, flexible and tentative plans and goals that might not be clear from the outset, and need reconfiguring also along the way (Rajala et al., 2013). This flexibility is at a core of PDE framework.
K. Kumpulainen / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
219
5. Next generation of research around the PDE framework When thinking about the next generation of research on the PDE framework, I shall call forth for more longitudinal studies that are able to illuminate the psychological, social and cultural practices of learning communities over time, evidencing participants’ changing relationships to learning, disciplinary knowledge, their social relationships as well as to schooling in general. I would also like to widen the disciplinary contexts in which the social construction of the PDE framework is embedded. This includes examining the potential of the PDE framework in promoting learners’ 21st century learning skills and competences within and across disciplines. I would also like to ask researchers to pay more attention to the roles of the researcher, individuals and collectives in the research process. I shall call forth for an additional and already emerging perspective in which more agency and voice is given to the research subjects in data collection and interpretation (Clark, 2011a, 2011b; Fielding, 2001). In this approach, research on classroom interaction and pedagogical practice can be defined as a collective, co-participatory process, leading ideally to transformations and learning gains for all parties involved. Last, but not least, I shall call forth for more systematic harnessing of the outcomes and ‘lessons learned’ of classroom studies interaction. This concerns teacher education and in-service teacher education programs as well as the educational practices of schools. It is obvious that culturally situated research on classroom interaction and learning applying innovative pedagogical frameworks and design principles needs to continue in diverse educational settings. Yet, in addition to these studies, I would like to invite more systematic review studies on existing research on classroom pedagogies and learning that would summarize the outcomes of present studies in such a way that they could be more powerfully harnessed by educational practitioners both at school and in teacher education programs. We cannot afford our innovative pedagogical models and practices to be the exquisite privilege of those classrooms in which we conduct our studies. The findings of these studies and innovations they create need to be communicated systematically so that the lessons learned can enrich the lives of as many classrooms, students and teachers as possible. This theme issue with its rich empirical analyses is beginning to address such possibilities. References Alexander, R. (2008). Culture, dialogue and learning. Notes on emerging pedagogy. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school. London: Sage. Bakhtin, M. (1981).(C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bransford, J., Vye, N., Stevens, R., Kuhl, P., Schwartz, D., Bell, P., et al. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 209–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, A. N. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399–413. Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52–66). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press. Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2006). Positioning students as actors and authors: A chronotopic analysis of collaborative learning activities. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(3), 247–259. Ce´sar, M. (2007). Dialogical identities in students from cultural minorities or students categorised as presenting SEN: How do they shape learning, namely in mathematics? In ScTIG Group (Ed.), 2nd socio-cultural theory in educational research & practice conference proceedings. Manchester: University of Manchester.www.lta.education.manchester.ac.uk/ScTIG/index.htm (online). Clark, A. (2011a). Breaking methodological boundaries? Exploring visual, participatory methods with adults and young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(3), 321–330. Clark, A. (2011b). Multimodal mapmaking with young children: Exploring ethnographic and participatory methods Special Issue. Multimodality and ethnography: Working at the intersection. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 311–330. Cole, M. (1996). Culture in mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston: DC Health & Co. Dumont, H., Istance, D., & Benavides, F. (Eds.). (2010). The nature of learning. Using research to inspire practice. Center for educational research and innovation. Paris: OECD. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182. Edwards, A., & D’Arcy, C. (2004). Relational agency and disposition in sociocultural accounts of learning to teach. Educational Review, 56, 147–155. Edwards, A., & Mackenzie, L. (2005). Steps towards participation: The social support of learning trajectories. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(4), 287–302. Engestro¨m, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Engestro¨m, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts and developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161–200). London: Taylor & Francis. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 339–483. Etelapelto, 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, 183–207. Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(2), 123–141. Fischer, G. (2011, May + June). Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. ACM Interactions, XVIII.3, 42–53, Web. November 1, 2011. http:// l3d.cs.colorado.edu/gerhard/papers/2011/interactions-coverstory.pdf. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 537–547. Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Communities of learning in the classroom. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 177–225). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
220
K. Kumpulainen / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
Kovalainen, M., Kumpulainen, K., & Vasama, S. (2001). Orchestrating classroom interaction in a community of inquiry: Modes of teacher participation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 17–28. Kumpulainen, K., Krokfors, L., Lipponen, L., Tissari, V., Hilppo¨, J., & Rajala, A. (2010). Learning bridges: Toward participatory learning environments. Helsinki: CICERO Learning, University of Helsinki. Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2010). Productive interaction as agentic participation in dialogic enquiry. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues. Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 48–63). London: Routledge. Kumpulainen, K., & Renshaw, P. (2007). Cultures of learning. An introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(3/4), 109–115. Kumpulainen, K., Vasama, S., & Kangassalo, M. (2003). The intertextuality of children’s explanations in a technology-enriched early years science classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 793–805. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 812–819. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rajala, A., Hilppo¨, J., Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2013). Expanding the chronotopes of schooling for promotion of students’ agency. In O. Erstad & J. SeftonGreen (Eds.), Identity, community, and learning lives in the digital age (pp. 107–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. Sabelli, N., & Dede, C. (2001, July). Integrating educational research and practice: Reconceptualizing goals and policies: ‘‘How to make what works, work for us?’’http:// www.ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/policy.pdf. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it’s too late. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631. Thomson, P., & Hall, C. (2008). Opportunities missed and/or thwarted? ‘Funds of knowledge’ meet the, English national curriculum. Curriculum Journal, 19(2), 87–103. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills. Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1997). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). (Trans.). In E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar (Eds.), Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Educational Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures
Commentary
The legacy of Productive Disciplinary Engagement Kristiina Kumpulainen * Department of Teacher Education, P.O. Box 9, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 8 July 2013 Accepted 17 July 2013 Available online 15 August 2013
This theme issue examines the possibilities and realities that regulate learning opportunities for students and teachers in diverse science classrooms harnessing the design principles of Productive Disciplinary Engagement (PDE). I shall begin my commentary by situating the PDE framework within the discourses of 21st century learning and education. Next, I shall consider the rationale and goals of the PDE framework and then move on to discussing the sociocultural embodiment of the framework in the case studies discussed. I shall finish my commentary by considering the educational significance of the PDE framework and by visioning the next generation of research around PDE. A call for longitudinal studies around PDE is proposed that are able to illuminate the psychological, social and cultural practices of learning communities over time, evidencing learners’ changing relationships to learning, disciplinary knowledge, their social relationships as well as to schooling in general. ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sociocultural framework Disciplinary engagement Science education 21st century learning
In this theme issue we are zooming in to the possibilities and realities that regulate learning opportunities for students and teachers in science classrooms harnessing the design principles of Productive Disciplinary Engagement (PDE). As these papers clearly show, the documented practices are embedded in socio-culturally framed eco-systems of the classrooms and schools of which dynamics support and also challenge the realization of the intended goals of the framework. The empirical case studies discussed provide researchers and educators with lenses through which to examine and understand the social construction of science teaching and learning within and across diverse classrooms. Rather than providing normative guidelines, this theme issue makes visible the sociocultural practices of science education based on PDE, including the nature of students’ engagement and meaning-making processes in disciplinary work. Studies of this nature are likely to open up dialog with their audience and potentially further develop students’ learning opportunities in science education and beyond. I shall begin my commentary by situating the PDE framework within the discourses of 21st century learning and education. Next, I shall consider the rationale and goals of the PDE framework and then move on to discussing the sociocultural embodiment of the framework in the case studies discussed. I shall finish my commentary by considering the educational significance of the PDE framework and by envisioning the next generation of research around PDE.
1. PDE framework and 21st century learning requirements This theme issue is situated in space and time during which public discourses in many countries are questioning whether existing education systems are able to support learners’ growth for life and work in the 21st century (e.g. Dumont, Istance, & Benavides, 2010). These concerned discourses are no longer generated by research communities in education and learning
* Tel.: +358 50 3185221; fax: +358 9 191 29611. E-mail address: kristiina.kumpulainen@helsinki.fi. 0883-0355/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.006
216
K. Kumpulainen / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
sciences, but also by practitioners working in different fields of education and beyond, working life representatives, educational policy makers, parents and, not the least, by learners themselves. Rich and vivid discourses about the future of education appear to have generated a global movement in which individuals and collectives in both public and private sectors are constructing roadmaps, methods and tools for education transformation that would better respond to the realities and learning requirements of this century. Particularly important skills and competencies to be addressed more strongly in curriculum and classroom practices include critical thinking skills, problemsolving skills, collaboration and communication skills, new literacy skills, creative skills as well as learning to learn and life skills (e.g. Trilling & Fadel, 2009). The significance of creating pedagogical spaces that support learners’ active and productive engagement in disciplinary learning is also widely recognized (Brown, 1997; Engle & Conant, 2002; Ford & Forman, 2006). But how can educational transformation happen so that it really touches the lives of every learner, equipping learners with knowledge, skills and competencies so that they can thrive in their lives and contribute to the common good of our society? Despite educational investments and reform efforts, we know how challenging it is to make a sustained change on prevailing teaching and learning practices based on more conventional models of education (Etelapelto, Littleton, Lahti, & Wirtanen, 2005; Fischer, 2011; Sarason, 1990; Thomson & Hall, 2008; Tyack & Cuban, 1997). This theme issue, with its rich, empirically grounded research studies, elaborates on a potential framework, Productive Disciplinary Engagement (PDE) that clearly has a lot to contribute to the transformation of teaching and learning practices at this historical point of dynamic change. Although the articles of the theme issue do not directly address the ‘21st century rhetoric on learning and education’, it feels worthwhile to contextualize all this important work within this societal discourse. In this way, we are able to extend our thinking about the legacy of PDE framework not only for advancing Productive Disciplinary Engagement in science but, more broadly, for its contribution to guiding the transformation of educational practices into the 21st century. The design principles of the PDE framework, namely, learning to pose intellectual problems, taking authority in meaning making and learning, being accountable to others, social norms and practices of schooling, classroom communities and the disciplines as well as being able to harness all relevant resources in the learning process are clearly important skills on their own right. They are not only subsidiary means to construct disciplinary learning but important learning dispositions that strongly resonate with the overall learning requirements of our society. 2. What is unique about PDE framework? Research in education and in the learning sciences has already generated a rich knowledge base on human learning and development (e.g. Bransford et al., 2006; Brown, 1997; Ford & Forman, 2006; Sawyer, 2006). Research has also been able to develop education principles, models and pedagogies for supporting active and meaningful learning in different classrooms and disciplines, and among different learners. Collaborative learning, problem-based learning, inquiry learning, learning by design, interdisciplinary learning, authentic learning, learning in a community of learners, and expansive learning are among the many pedagogical heuristics that have been documented in the research literature. Among others, these approaches have evidenced a shift from teacher-centered toward learner-centered approaches. These approaches have also evidenced a shift from individual orientation toward socially oriented notions of constructive processes (Brown, 1997; Hakkarainen, 2010; Sawyer, 2006). Despite the potential of these learner-centered pedagogies, research has also clearly shown that the educational value of most of these approaches depends on engaging students in the pursuit of complex problems, sharing and creating of knowledge, breaking boundaries between formal and informal as well as between different communities of practice and promoting the development of learner agency (Hakkarainen, 2010). Research has also shown that in order for these pedagogies to be productive their success is strongly related to curriculum, instruction, assessment practices, teacher’s professionalism, and the overall teaching and learning cultures of classrooms and schools (Kumpulainen & Renshaw, 2007; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). We have also learned that research knowledge does not easily transfer to practice (Sabelli & Dede, 2001). Consequently, although these pedagogies can also be found to flourish in some schools and classrooms, they are more like ‘beautiful exceptions’ rather than a common practice. Also the fact that the field is rich and diverse has made it difficult for teachers to implement the heuristics and their specific scripts in their unique classrooms in systematic ways. Unlike many pedagogical frameworks and models based on specific scripts, the PDE framework was originally created to provide guiding principles for both designing and understanding learning environments that seek to foster students’ deep involvement and productive engagement in disciplinary work. The framework was developed as a response to the need to bring coherence and unity to the many existing design principles for creating effective learning environments with a specific interest to mathematics and science classrooms (Engle, 2011; Engle & Conant, 2002). The core concepts of the framework, i.e., engagement, disciplinary engagement and Productive Disciplinary Engagement as well as the principles for fostering PDE, i.e. problematizing, authority, accountability, and resources create a common frame of reference for educators and researchers to explore and interpret teaching and learning practices within and across disciplines, classrooms and their sociocultural settings. These core concepts and principles form the base line for collectively making sense and for further developing learning environments. In all, the design principles of the PDE framework provide both structure and flexibility in their implementation into pedagogical practice. This is likely to lead to rich understandings about the possibilities and challenges of this framework in transforming traditional pedagogical practices and students’ learning opportunities, as also evidenced in this publication.
K. Kumpulainen / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
217
3. The sociocultural embodiment of the PDE framework in science classrooms The sociocultural learning theories situate learning within the interplay of micro and macro level processes by examining social activity in its cultural and historical context (Alexander, 2008; Cole, 1996; Daniels, 2001; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). Via their different scales and levels of analysis, the studies discussed in this theme issue also recognize the dynamic relationships that exist between individuals, collectives, and cultures mediating the social practices of science teaching and learning. The sociocultural approach holds a conception of the learner as a cultural and historical subject embedded within, and constituted by, a network of social relationships and interactions. It is the changing nature of these relationships and types of participation in cultural activities that explain learning and development (Kumpulainen & Renshaw, 2007). In viewing learning as the process of becoming an active participant in various communities of practice, the sociocultural framework stresses the role of cultural and semiotic tools as mediators of social interaction and modes of thinking (Vygotsky, 1962). Semiotic tools constructed and re-constructed in collective activity create the grounds for meaning making, transforming the human capacity to act and further develop cultural contexts (Wertsch, 1991). Within the framework of the sociocultural approach, learning is a participation process in collective activities from peripheral to central engagement (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). The process of becoming an active member and a legitimate participant in a community involves particular ways of acting and knowing as defined by the culture in question. These include, for example, modes of inquiry, ways of communicating, conventions for presenting ideas, procedures for verifying knowledge and claims, as well as values and beliefs (Wertsch, 1991). The role of the teacher is seen as scaffolding learners’ engagement in cultural activities (Rogoff, 1990). This involves providing learners with appropriate support and tools to participate and make meaning in collective activity. The teacher’s instructional activities can include directing attention, monitoring ongoing performance, and adjusting the degree of assistance depending on the learner’s level of engagement (Kovalainen, Kumpulainen, & Vasama, 2001). Collective meaning making requires that there is space for diverse expertise and interpretations that are open to challenge and reconsideration. From this perspective, expertise is seen as a dynamic entity that is distributed over the community – not only within the classroom but ideally also with authentic expert communities (Brown, 1997; Hakkarainen, 2010). Next, I shall contextualize these core notions of the sociocultural framework with the articles of this theme issue. The study of Xenia Meyer elaborates on the changing nature of learners’ engagement in the discipline of science, illuminating the process of learning as participation from peripheral to central while the students engaged in authentic inquiry-based investigation in collaboration with practicing scientists. The paper proposes that these students experienced PDE at both initial and deeper levels, where students’ initial PDE in scientific activities prepared them for deeper PDE at a more discipline-specific level. Here, the students’ authority and accountability were fostered by the appropriation of scientific authority and accountability that led to students’ deeper engagement in scientific activities. The study of Ellice Forman and Michael Ford enriches our understanding of the ways in which students’ science learning proceeds from intermental level to intramental level. With their empirical data they show how the interpersonal processes of constructing and critiquing precedes and fosters its intrapersonal appropriation. That is, understanding and anticipating critique (disciplinary accountability) is a logical and developmental precursor for achieving disciplinary authority for both scientists and students. Integrating sense making and articulating with persuasion is, thus, seen as crucial to engaging students in authentic disciplinary practices. Forman and Ford also identify sociocultural constraints that mediate students’ argumentation practices and learning opportunities. These constraints have to do with the institutional and social norms and expectations that typically exist in classrooms. Their study demonstrates that students were not accustomed to being held to disciplinary standards, critiquing their peers or being critiqued by them. This finding confirms the important role of culture in mediating learning opportunities in classrooms (Alexander, 2008; Kumpulainen & Renshaw, 2007). The other two studies discussed in the theme issue illuminate powerfully the learning-culture interface that mediates teaching and learning practices in classrooms. In addition, the papers pinpoint the agentic role of the teacher in supporting learners’ productive engagement in disciplinary learning. The paper of Patrice Venturini and Chantal Amade-Escot zooms into a French science classroom and focuses on the ways in which an experienced teacher deals with an open investigation process and adapts it to traditional physics lessons. Their study reveals how curriculum requirements as well as the organization of time in a French secondary school constrained the implementation of PDE in this classroom. The study of Eduardo F. Mortimer and Angelica Oliveira de Araujo situated in a Brazilian high school chemistry classroom further confirms the pivotal role of culture in regulating teaching and learning practices. Their study reveals how the curriculum, testing program, and the overall educational culture, its practices, norms and values contest the application of PDE framework in the science classroom. As the authors conclude, the transformation of science education practices requires holistic change that cannot be achieved by one teacher alone. 4. Educational significance of PDE The dominant pedagogies of schooling do not often provide students with diverse and rich possibilities for becoming productively engaged in learning (Kumpulainen & Lipponen, 2010). The learning practices are reduced to acquisition of new
218
K. Kumpulainen / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
knowledge and skills, whereas students’ deep disciplinary learning and agency are inadequately fostered (Brown & Renshaw, 2006; Ford & Forman, 2006; Tyack & Cuban, 1997). The studies reported in this theme issue highlight the ways in which the application of the PDE framework can potentially expand the conventional learning practices in science classrooms. The social construction of PDE provided the students with multiple and diverse positions of authority. Knowledge and knowing were therefore not only associated with the teacher, the curriculum, or outside experts, but rather with everyone participating. In other words, the students were seen by themselves and by others as knowledgeable and committed participants whose identities were variable, multivocal, and interactive (Ce´sar, 2007; Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). The students were also held accountable for producing thoughtful and justified opinions and arguments that would contribute to authentic problem solving and learning. The students’ accountability to peers, the teacher and experts representing disciplinary communities was also reflected in the ways in which meanings were negotiated and what counted as knowledge and knowing in these science classroom communities (Holland et al., 1998). In addition, the PDE framework allowed researchers to appreciate instruction that provided students with opportunities to develop interpersonal relationships and to learn with and from others. Whereas in more conventional settings, the expert community is mainly positioned as disconnected from students’ lives and school activities, here the students were found to build and connect to a network of relevant others in their learning practices. Thus, these classrooms provided supportive grounds for what Edwards, among others, has called relational agency (Edwards, 2005; Edwards & D’Arcy, 2004; Edwards & Mackenzie, 2005). The PDE constructed into being in the classrooms reported in these articles also appeared to foster the students’ conceptual agency that entails progressive actions toward deeper disciplinary engagement (Greeno, 2006; Pickering, 1995). In building on the students’ observations and experiences, the teachers supported the students in thinking with, rather than about, their experiences and views (Kumpulainen, Vasama, & Kangassalo, 2003). In addition, multiple cultural resources were used in collective meaning making, including various kinds of expert voices. However, rather than treating these as authoritative voices (Bakhtin, 1981; Scott, Mortimer, & Aguiar, 2006), the classroom community constructed counterarguments in juxtaposing different voices against each other and against students’ own experiences and observations. The third form of agency made possible in the social context of PDE was transformative agency. The students exercised transformative agency as they were able to break away from the traditional ‘‘taken-for-granted’’ patterns of activities (Engestro¨m, 2008), take initiatives, and contribute to authentic problem solving (Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011). At the same time, the students were also taking part in co-constructing the cultural practices of what it means to make meaning, participate, and learn in science classrooms. Students’ transformative agency was illuminated, for example, in the study of Xenia Meyer on students’ changing nature of engagement in science learning as the result of extended opportunities to act authoritatively and accountably. Here, the students engaged in authentic scientific inquiry in collaboration with practicing scientists, thus their learning practices were extended beyond the typical science classroom. In this study, we can see how the students’ communication of scientific knowledge became a practice of authority in PDE and the justification of findings became one of accountability. In addition, the study of Ellice Forman and Michael Ford sheds light on the potential of PDE in creating opportunities for students’ transformative agency. In their study, we can identify the students being engaged in questioning, critiquing, arguing and articulating scientific constructs with persuasion. These are all important elements of and for transformative agency mediated by opportunities to act authoritative and accountably (Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011; Rajala, Hilppo¨, Lipponen, & Kumpulainen, 2013). The studies of this theme issue also demonstrate that enacting the PDE framework in classroom communities requires agency on the part of the teachers (Edwards, 2005; Edwards & D’Arcy, 2004; Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011). In particular, pursuing a transformative stance to existing pedagogical practice may involve taking a course of action which is not shared or valued by the existing school culture, resulting in conflicts and contradictions (Brown & Renshaw, 2000). However, questioning current practices and seeing alternative futures are pivotal pre-requisites in transforming social practices (Engestro¨m & Sannino, 2010). PDE also involves connecting learning across settings, communities and time. For instance, in order to connect learning and teaching to expert communities outside school, teachers and schools need to build partnerships and networks. Building networks and partnerships also requires new competences from teachers, such as being able to engage in multi-professional collaboration (Kumpulainen et al., 2010). Moreover, the transformation of education calls for learning tasks that are authentic, current and complex real-life problems (Hakkarainen, 2010). As the papers of this theme issue illuminate, these kinds of learning environments can have the potential to expand the forms of accountability by expanding the requirements for engagement and bringing in new audiences with whom students pose questions, share and discuss their observations, opinions and reflections. In these situations, students are likely to see the meaningfulness and applicability of their learning within and beyond the school. In a conventional school, knowledge is usually to be remembered and reproduced instead of used as a tool to solve problems (Engestro¨m, 2008). Indeed, in order to determine the usefulness of an idea, it is essential to test it in practice (Dewey, 1910). When doing so, new audiences respond, thus providing students with feedback about the feasibility of their ideas. In essence, the culture of learning mediated by PDE calls for ‘‘under-designing for emergent behavior’’ (Fischer, 2011), that is, it leaves room for creativity, renegotiations and surprises. Addressing authentic problems and tasks requires the teacher and students to work with open, flexible and tentative plans and goals that might not be clear from the outset, and need reconfiguring also along the way (Rajala et al., 2013). This flexibility is at a core of PDE framework.
K. Kumpulainen / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
219
5. Next generation of research around the PDE framework When thinking about the next generation of research on the PDE framework, I shall call forth for more longitudinal studies that are able to illuminate the psychological, social and cultural practices of learning communities over time, evidencing participants’ changing relationships to learning, disciplinary knowledge, their social relationships as well as to schooling in general. I would also like to widen the disciplinary contexts in which the social construction of the PDE framework is embedded. This includes examining the potential of the PDE framework in promoting learners’ 21st century learning skills and competences within and across disciplines. I would also like to ask researchers to pay more attention to the roles of the researcher, individuals and collectives in the research process. I shall call forth for an additional and already emerging perspective in which more agency and voice is given to the research subjects in data collection and interpretation (Clark, 2011a, 2011b; Fielding, 2001). In this approach, research on classroom interaction and pedagogical practice can be defined as a collective, co-participatory process, leading ideally to transformations and learning gains for all parties involved. Last, but not least, I shall call forth for more systematic harnessing of the outcomes and ‘lessons learned’ of classroom studies interaction. This concerns teacher education and in-service teacher education programs as well as the educational practices of schools. It is obvious that culturally situated research on classroom interaction and learning applying innovative pedagogical frameworks and design principles needs to continue in diverse educational settings. Yet, in addition to these studies, I would like to invite more systematic review studies on existing research on classroom pedagogies and learning that would summarize the outcomes of present studies in such a way that they could be more powerfully harnessed by educational practitioners both at school and in teacher education programs. We cannot afford our innovative pedagogical models and practices to be the exquisite privilege of those classrooms in which we conduct our studies. The findings of these studies and innovations they create need to be communicated systematically so that the lessons learned can enrich the lives of as many classrooms, students and teachers as possible. This theme issue with its rich empirical analyses is beginning to address such possibilities. References Alexander, R. (2008). Culture, dialogue and learning. Notes on emerging pedagogy. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school. London: Sage. Bakhtin, M. (1981).(C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bransford, J., Vye, N., Stevens, R., Kuhl, P., Schwartz, D., Bell, P., et al. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 209–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, A. N. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399–413. Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52–66). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press. Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2006). Positioning students as actors and authors: A chronotopic analysis of collaborative learning activities. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(3), 247–259. Ce´sar, M. (2007). Dialogical identities in students from cultural minorities or students categorised as presenting SEN: How do they shape learning, namely in mathematics? In ScTIG Group (Ed.), 2nd socio-cultural theory in educational research & practice conference proceedings. Manchester: University of Manchester.www.lta.education.manchester.ac.uk/ScTIG/index.htm (online). Clark, A. (2011a). Breaking methodological boundaries? Exploring visual, participatory methods with adults and young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(3), 321–330. Clark, A. (2011b). Multimodal mapmaking with young children: Exploring ethnographic and participatory methods Special Issue. Multimodality and ethnography: Working at the intersection. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 311–330. Cole, M. (1996). Culture in mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston: DC Health & Co. Dumont, H., Istance, D., & Benavides, F. (Eds.). (2010). The nature of learning. Using research to inspire practice. Center for educational research and innovation. Paris: OECD. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182. Edwards, A., & D’Arcy, C. (2004). Relational agency and disposition in sociocultural accounts of learning to teach. Educational Review, 56, 147–155. Edwards, A., & Mackenzie, L. (2005). Steps towards participation: The social support of learning trajectories. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(4), 287–302. Engestro¨m, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Engestro¨m, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts and developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161–200). London: Taylor & Francis. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 339–483. Etelapelto, 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, 183–207. Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(2), 123–141. Fischer, G. (2011, May + June). Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. ACM Interactions, XVIII.3, 42–53, Web. November 1, 2011. http:// l3d.cs.colorado.edu/gerhard/papers/2011/interactions-coverstory.pdf. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 537–547. Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Communities of learning in the classroom. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 177–225). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
220
K. Kumpulainen / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 215–220
Kovalainen, M., Kumpulainen, K., & Vasama, S. (2001). Orchestrating classroom interaction in a community of inquiry: Modes of teacher participation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 17–28. Kumpulainen, K., Krokfors, L., Lipponen, L., Tissari, V., Hilppo¨, J., & Rajala, A. (2010). Learning bridges: Toward participatory learning environments. Helsinki: CICERO Learning, University of Helsinki. Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2010). Productive interaction as agentic participation in dialogic enquiry. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues. Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 48–63). London: Routledge. Kumpulainen, K., & Renshaw, P. (2007). Cultures of learning. An introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(3/4), 109–115. Kumpulainen, K., Vasama, S., & Kangassalo, M. (2003). The intertextuality of children’s explanations in a technology-enriched early years science classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 793–805. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 812–819. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rajala, A., Hilppo¨, J., Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2013). Expanding the chronotopes of schooling for promotion of students’ agency. In O. Erstad & J. SeftonGreen (Eds.), Identity, community, and learning lives in the digital age (pp. 107–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. Sabelli, N., & Dede, C. (2001, July). Integrating educational research and practice: Reconceptualizing goals and policies: ‘‘How to make what works, work for us?’’http:// www.ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/policy.pdf. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it’s too late. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631. Thomson, P., & Hall, C. (2008). Opportunities missed and/or thwarted? ‘Funds of knowledge’ meet the, English national curriculum. Curriculum Journal, 19(2), 87–103. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills. Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1997). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). (Trans.). In E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar (Eds.), Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.