Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, Experience, and Inquiry in Educational Practice

Glassman, Michael

doi:10.3102/0013189x030004003

Cited by 172 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From the CHAT perspective, the generation and use of new rules, roles, and norms by practitioners; the creation of new communities of practice; and acculturation to new divisions of labor in work settings are viewed as evidence of organizational change. As participants in an activity system (in our case higher education practitioners) use new cultural tools or interact with others in new ways, the culture changes; it becomes "re-mediated," in the Vygotskian sense of cultural remediation (Glassmen, 2001;Moll, 2000;. The subjects of the system become acculturated to new ways of doing things, coming to accept them as "the way things ought to be" (Spillane et al, 2011, p. 615).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustaining change towards racial equity through cycles of inquiry

Dowd

Liera

2018

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many national, state, and institutional policies and initiatives advocate for change in higher education through structured forms of data use. The case study of “Old Main University” presented in this article shows how local reformers (n=9) drew on data and data use tools provided by a long-term action research project implemented at the university to advance racial equity goals at their university. The case narrative utilizes practice theory, cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), and narrative inquiry to illustrate how administrative leaders and faculty at Old Main University coordinated their efforts in a sustained manner through two cycles of practitioner inquiry that was responsive to policy goals. The findings show that data use is productive to promote racial equity when data and data use protocols are used iteratively and in interaction among practitioners who use them to identify inequities rooted in their own practices. The findings support the conclusion that, to sustain change efforts as long-term (mesogenetic) projects, policy makers and local reformers should plan to iteratively redesign data tools, practices, and policies to institute changes in everyday (microgenetic) work practices. Such purposeful redesign holds potential to re-structure professional interactions, sustain motivation and organizational learning, and acculturate practitioners to equity as a standard of practice.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustaining change towards racial equity through cycles of inquiry

Dowd

Liera

2018

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rogoff (1982) and Rogoff and Gauvain (1984) concluded that the potential for transfer from these kinds of activities was as great as that from schooling. The development of what Vygotsky (1978) refers to as scientific, rather than everyday concepts, is not dependent on whether they were learnt in a school or not, but whether the concepts were made accessible or not (Glassman 2001). So assumptions about the concreteness of learning arising from participation in social practices other than educational institutions need to be critically appraised, particularly in light of the crisis of transfer claimed to be occurring with learning from educational institutions (e.g.…”

Section: Constituting Workplace Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critiquing workplace learning discourses: Participation and continuity at work

Billett¹

2002

Studies in the Education of Adults

198

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning, work and participatory practicesTo understand further how learning through work occurs and can be best organised, necessitates setting aside some assumptions embedded in the current workplace learning discourse. It is proposed that workplaces and educational institutions merely represent different instances of social practices in which learning occurs through participation. Learning in both kinds of social practice can be understood through a consideration of their respective participatory practices. Therefore, to distinguish between the two in terms of formalisms of social practice (i.e. that one is formalised and the other informal) and propose some general consequences for learning arising from these bases is not helpful. Both these kinds of social practices are constituted historically, culturally and situationally (Billett 1998), and share a common concern with continuity of practice. The need for workplaces and educational institutions and other kinds of social institutions and practices have evolved over time and are constituted as the product of particular cultural needs (see Scribner 1985).The manifestation of the particular social practice (e.g. a particular workplace or school) is shaped by a complex of cultural needs and situational factors such as local needs, the individuals involved, and the locally-negotiated goals for the activities including bases for judgments about performance (see Engestrom & Middleton 1996, Suchman 1996. The structuring of learning experiences in workplaces is likely to be directed towards sustaining the practice (Darrah 1996, Pelissier 1991) including sustaining the interests of one or more groups in the practice. Educational institutions also share the goal of continuity. However, there are distinctive qualities in the norms, activities and goals of these two kinds of social practice. Among these differences is the likely claim that educational institutions have learning as their principal and privileged role. However, if learning is seen as something privileged by practices within educational institutions, rather than as a consequence of participation in social practices more generally, (such as those involved in the production of goods or services), this may inhibit understanding about learning generally and learning through work, in particular.

show abstract

“…Como se observa, partir de la experiencia individual para la comprensión y el planteamiento de la realidad delinea un movimiento estructural de abajo hacia arriba (bottom-up), es decir, permite una apertura al desarrollo de formulación y problemas investigativos diversos pero sumamente indeterminados; una actividad controlada y dispuesta para enseñar de manera efectiva los aspectos investigativos necesarios que deben saber los miembros de la sociedad, delineando así un movimiento estructural de arriba hacia abajo (top-down), es decir, permite concretar los intereses investigativos desde una posición determinada (Glassman, 2001). La diferenciación de estas posturas define estructuras de organización social del conocimiento para la investigación desde objetivos y fines similares pero de principios alternos.…”

Section: Pedagogía De La Investigación Educativaunclassified