The relationship between passibility, agency and social interaction and its relevance for research and pedagogy

Abstract

The interaction analysis presented by Kim and Roth examines nine students, their teachers, the learning task and materials in a mixed second and third grade science classroom during the school day. In the research narrative readers are introduced to two resourceful and creative groups of students as they work on a task assigned by their teacher-to cantilever a pizza box over the edge of a student desk. Readers are given glimpses (through images and transcripts) of the inventive ways each group solved the cantilever problem. Sometimes the children disregarded the design constraints, but even after compliance they managed to successfully solve the problem. The point of the learning task was not clearly stated, but readers are told the unit focused on investigating forces, forces in equilibrium, and structures as well as different forces (push, pull, etc.), properties of materials, and the relations between weight and balance while building structures. Kim and Roth were specifically interested in using this session to investigate and resolve the problem of learning as described by socio-cultural theorists as, how does a learner orient toward a learning outcome when they cannot do that until they have learned it? To answer this question Kim and Roth argued that learners (in engineering design) learn when and because: (1) they are open to be affected by the responses of materials to student action

What is children's agency? A review of conceptualizations used in early childhood education research

“…Second, to complement the active nature of agency, recent theoretical contributions (e.g. Goulart & Roth, 2010;Huf, 2013;Kim & Roth, 2016;Kirch & Ma, 2016;Roth & Maheux, 2015) have aimed at capturing a more passive aspect that acts to complement active agency. This passivity has been conceptualised as "passibility" (Kim & Roth, 2016;Roth & Maheux 2010;cf.…”

“…Theoretically speaking, this notion is extremely complex. It requires further elaboration before it can be ascertained whether the concept of passibility successfully captures openness and passivity and can thus complement CA as intended (Kirch & Ma, 2016).…”

A não-modernidade de Bruno Latour e suas implicações para a Educação em Ciências

“…O conceito de mediação, por exemplo, é detalhadamente explorado por ambos e tal intersecção já foi discutida na literatura em Educação (MELO, 2010). A literatura também lança mão da obra de Bruno Latour para discutir diferentes questões da Educação (BARNACLE; MEWBURN, 2010;ELLIOTT;YOUNG, 2015;KIRCH;MA, 2016), uso da linguagem (DODICK et al, 2008;GIL-SALOM;SOLER-MONREAL, 2009;TAKAO;KELLY, 2003), problemas ambientais e de sustentabilidade (COLUCCI-GRAY, 2014;IORIO et al, 2017;PALHARINI, 2012), e questões póscolonialistas e feministas (ALSOP; FAWCETT, 2010;SOLBRAEKKE et al, 2013). Apesar de essas publicações tratarem de temas extremamente importantes em que a obra de Latour pode apresentar uma profícua contribuição, muitas delas não atingem aquilo que Latour julga ser o coração de sua contribuição para a área, sua perspectiva ontológica, a possibilidade de se olhar para a natureza simetricamente à sociedade.…”