THE SINGLE-MINDED ’GOLD STANDARD’ THREAT TO INNOVATION AND RELEVANCE

Anyone who attempts to skip this problem, to jump over methodology in order to build some special psychological science right away, will inevitably jump over his horse while trying to sit on it. (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 329) © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

THE SINGLE-MINDED ’GOLD STANDARD’ THREAT TO INNOVATION AND RELEVANCE • RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS • SELECTION OF VALID CONTROL GROUPS • ‘SCALABILITY’: LARGE STATISTICAL SAMPLES AND MULTIPLE RESEARCH SITES • ASSUMPTION: RESEARCHERS KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO IMPLEMENT, HOW THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE • THE TASK OF RESEARCH IS TO CHECK WHETHER OR NOT THE DESIRED OUTCOMES ARE ACTUALLY ACHIEVED © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

’Design experiments’ suggested by Brown (1992) and Collins (1992) to bridge the gap between educational research and practical educational innovation • Cobb & al. (2003, p. 9): ”Design experiments ideally result in greater understanding of a learning ecology - a complex, interacting system involving multiple elements of different types and levels - by designing its elements and by anticipating how these elements function together to support learning. Design experiments therefore constitute a means of addressing the complexity that is a hallmark of educational settings.” © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

”In addition to clarifying the theoretical intent of the experiment, the research team must also specify the significant disciplinary ideas and forms of reasoning that constitute the prospective goals or endpoints for student learning.” (Cobb & al., 2003, p. 11; italics added) ”Design experiments were developed as a way to carry out formative research to test and refine educational designs based on theoretical principles derived from prior research. This approach of progressive refinement in design involves putting a first version of a design into the world to see how it works. Then, the design is constantly revised based on experience, until all the bugs are worked out.” (Collins, Joseph & Bielaczyc, 2004, p. 18; italics added) © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

”Thus, in the jigsaw, all pieces of the puzzle come together to form a complete understanding.” (Collins, Joseph & Bielaczyc, 2004, p. 23; italics added) © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

LIMITATIONS OF DESIGN EXPERIMENTS THE PROCESS OF DESIGN RESEARCH IS ASSUMED TO BE LINEAR AND AIMED AT CLOSURE; THIS IGNORES * THE AGENCY OF PRACTITIONERS AND STUDENTS and * THE HISTRORICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINISHED MASS PRODUCTS AND OPEN-ENDED CO-CONFIGURATION PRODUCTS © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

“Intervention is an on-going transformational process that is constantly re-shaped by its own internal organisational and political dynamic and by the specific conditions it encounters or itself creates, including the responses and strategies of local and regional groups who may struggle to define and defend their own social spaces, cultural boundaries and positions within the wider power field.” (Long, 2001, p. 27) © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

“Crucial to understanding processes of intervention is the need to identify and come to grips with the strategies that local actors devise for dealing with their new intervenors so that they might appropriate, manipulate, subvert or dismember particular interventions.” (Long, 2001, p. 233) © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

“In experiments involving meaningless situations, Lewin found that the subject searches for some point of support that is external to him and that he defines his own behavior through this external support. In one set of experiments, for example, the experimenter left the subject and did not return, but observed him from a separate room. Generally, the subject waited for 10-20 minutes.Then, not understanding what he should do, he remained in a state of oscillation, confusion and indecisiveness for some time. Nearly all the adults searched for some external point of support. For example, one subject defined his actions in terms of the striking of the clock. Looking at the clock, he thought: ‘When the hand moves to the vertical position, I will leave.’ The subject transformed the situation in this way, establishing that he would wait until 2:30 and then leave. When the time came, the action occurred automatically. By changing the psychological field, the subject created a new situation for himself in this field. He transformed the meaningless situation into one that had a clear meaning.” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 356) © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

LEWIN’S EXPERIMENT AS DOUBLE STIMULATION • FIRST STIMULUS: THE CONTRADICTORY TASK OF WAITING FOR AN EXPERIMENT (’I PROMISED TO BE HERE, BUT NOTHING HAPPENS!’) • SECOND STIMULUS: THE CLOCK • ...TURNED INTO A MEANINGFUL SIGN (’WHEN THE CLOCK STRIKES 2:30...) • WHICH ENHANCES AGENCY AND ENABLES THE SUBJECT TO BREAK AWAY (... I WILL LEAVE’) © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

VYGOTSKY ON AGENCY AND INTENTIONALITY • INTENTIONAL ACTION AND WILL EMERGE IN A CONTRADICTORY SITUATION • INTENTIONAL ACTION HAS TWO PHASES: PREPARATION (OR DESIGN) AND EXECUTION • PREPARATION IS DIFFICULT: A NEW MEDIATING ARTIFACT (TOOL, SIGN) IS INVENTED OR ADOPTED, IT IS INVESTED WITH MEANING SO THAT IT ENABLES ONE TO ’CONTROL ONE’S BEHAVIOR FROM THE OUTSIDE’ • EXECUTION IS EASY (LOOKS ALMOST LIKE A CONDITIONED REFLEX) © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

CHEATING AS DOUBLE STIMULATION • GOOD CHEATING IS HARD; IT REQUIRES PREPARATION, CONSTRUCTION OF A CHEATING SLIP • FIRST STIMULI: THE EXAM QUESTIONS • SECOND STIMULI: THE CHEATING SLIP • THE QUALITY AND CONTENTS OF THE CHEATING SLIP OBJECTIFY AND MAKE VISIBLE THE STUDENT’S WAY OF MAKING SENSE OF THE TASK • CHEATING IS PRACTICAL CRITICISM OF SCHOOL LEARNING WHICH STRIPS STUDENTS OF USEFUL TOOLS © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

SECOND STIMULI Models, tools FIRST STIMULI Mirror; recurring troubles CHANGE LABORATORY SESSION IN A HEALTH CARE SETTING Ideas toward a new concept © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

7. CONSOLIDATING AND GENERALIZING THE NEW PRACTICE IDEAL-TYPICAL CYCLE OF EXPANSIVE LEARNING STABILIZATION 6. REFLECTING ON THE PROCESS 1. QUESTIONING NEED STATE RESISTANCE 2. ANALYSIS DOUBLE BIND 5. IMPLEMENTING THE NEW MODEL 3. MODELING THE NEW SOLUTION ADJUSTMENT, ENRICHMENT BREAKTHROUGH 4. EXAMINING AND TESTING THE NEW MODEL Source: Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. (available online at: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm) © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

THREE POINTS OF CONTRAST BETWEEN LINEAR EXPERIMENTS AND FORMATIVE INTERVENTIONS 1) STARTING POINT: FIXED GOAL vs. POORLY UNDERSTOOD CONTRADICTORY OBJECT 2) PROCESS: EXECUTION AND REFINEMENT vs. DOUBLE STIMULATION 3) OUTCOME: STANDARDIZED SOLUTION PACKAGES vs. NEW ACTIVITY CONCEPTS © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

FORMATIVE INTERVENTIONS IN SCHOOLS? • TURNING THE SCHOOL INTO A COLLECTIVE INSTRUMENT AND PLATFORM FOR TRANSFORMATION OF SURROUNDING ACTIVITIES: e.g., elementary school students, teachers and parents as community planners and designers of the environment • ENABLING STUDENTS AND TEACHERS TO TRANSFORM THEIR OWN SCHOOL ACTIVITY: e.g., the Culture Laboratory (Teräs, 2007) • THE OBJECT MUST BE MEANINGFUL AND CONTRADICTORY IN THE LIVES OF THE PARTICIPANTS © 2008 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

THE SINGLE-MINDED ’GOLD STANDARD’ THREAT TO INNOVATION AND RELEVANCE