Viewing teacher transformation through the lens of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT)

Abstract

Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment (TEFA) is an innovative pedagogy for science and mathematics instruction. The 'Teacher Learning of TEFA' research project studies teacher change as in-service secondary science and mathematics teachers learn TEFA in the context of a multi-year professional development programme. Applying cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) to the linked activity systems of professional development and teachers' classroom practice leads to a model of teacher learning and pedagogical change in which TEFA is first introduced into classrooms as an object of activity, and then made useful as a tool for instruction, and then-in rare cases-incorporated into all elements of a deeply transformed practice. Different levels of contradiction within and between activity systems drive the transitions between stages. A CHAT analysis suggests that the primary contradiction within secondary education is a dual view of students as objects of instruction and of students as willful individuals; the difficulties arising from this can either inhibit or motivate TEFA adoption.

Using Cultural Historical Activity Theory to understand how emerging technologies can mediate teaching and learning in a mathematics classroom: a review of literature

“…Context of the studies Table 1 shows that the reviewed studies used CHAT for varying purposes. For example, Beatty and Feldman (2012) viewed teacher transformation through the lens of CHAT and thus studied teacher change and pedagogical change as in-service secondary science and mathematics teachers learned Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment (TEFA) in the context of a multi-year professional development program, termed Teacher Learning of TEFA (TLT). Their intention was to help the teachers to learn to use TLT successfully in their classes.…”

“…Mostly, they either made mention of general terms of analysis which were even not well elaborated or analyzed a part of them, despite variations in collection. For instance, Beatty and Feldman (2012) collected data from four sites in a span of one baseline semester and 2 to 3 years of professional development. Having collected data on the participants' backgrounds, outlooks, experiences, and classroom practice of TEFA through multiple instruments and methods, they left the instruments and methods unidentified.…”

“…Table 3 reveals that for all the studies, subjects were identified. Within the CHAT activity triangle, Beatty and Feldman (2012) and Hardman (2015; identified the individual teacher as their subject while for Huang and Lin (2013), the subjects of the activity system were the Atayal students, the teacher, and their actions and operations during the teaching/learning process. It can be discerned that whereas Atayal students are individuals, the teacher's actions and operations during the teaching/learning process are not.…”

“…In Beatty and Feldman's (2012) study, the successful implementation of TEFA to help students learn was the desired objective (outcome) as well as the students' content knowledge that was the raw material for producing the desired outcomes of the subject comprehension and readiness for standardized tests and subsequent schooling. While Hardman (2015) did not specify the outcome, Hardman's (2007) outcome was mathematically proficient students.…”

Preservice EAL teaching as emotional experiences: Practicum experience in an Australian secondary school

“…Secondly, it allows for analysis of the supportive and contradictory relationships between different components of the activity system, especially identification of inner contradictions within the activity system (Engeström, 1987(Engeström, , 2001Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild, 2009). Research has found that contradictions play a central role in shaping how the subject of activity functions and develops within the activity system; they can cause tensions and inhibit development, but also have the capacity to motivate change and development through innovations in collective contradiction resolution (e.g., Ahn, 2011;Beatty & Feldman, 2012;J. Cross, 2011;Dang, 2013;Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild, 2009).…”