CHAT and education research (Part II of a series)

I recently stumbled upon a 2011 paper by Lee, who argues for increased use of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) in research on educational change.

I could not have found this at a more opportune time. Lee presents a good overview of CHAT and its place in the sociocultural tradition. I needed this refresher as well as new ways to think about applying CHAT as an interpretive lens to the data set for my project.

Sociocultural theory
First, Lee introduced the family of theories that compose the sociocultural tradition:

"A heterogeneous grouping of frameworks (e.g. distributed/situated cognition, practice theory, communities of practice, cognitive apprenticeships), they are united in accounting for behavior and learning beyond purely mental conceptions housed within human minds. Giving primacy instead to social interactions with other human beings and designed artifacts as the catalysts for cognition, the process of human development becomes inextricably linked with participation in culture and history rather than being dictated by biology" (p. 403).

Sociocultural theorists seek to dissolve dichotomies based on traditional Western philosophy, such as cognition and identity, person and group. Sociocultural theory provides for a  "richer, non-reductionist, and more humane approach towards educational practice and research" (p. 404).

OK, so what about CHAT?

CHAT is the newest member of the family, and it is growing in popularity. It is comprised of both a theoretical perspective and a concrete analytical method (activity theory), and the purpose of Lee's article is to argue that CHAT "can address some of the major shortcomings or gaps in educational change research" (p. 404).

The diagram (again!)
Lee provides an excellent explanation of the expansion of Vygotsky’s classic triangle diagram into the activity systems triangular diagram (both pictured below):

"While Vygotsky first proposed mediating tools (e.g. semiotic sign systems such as mathematics and language or physical tools such as writing equipment), contemporary versions of CHAT include other mediators such as rules, community, and the division of labor that are all dialectically linked. Together, these permit the subject (i.e. the agents) to transform the object (that which is to be changed) to produce an outcome" (p. 407).

Over the last century, theorists expanded Vygotsky's simple triangle diagram to show that his original conception of "tools" is but one kind of mediator in an activity system. Lee explains, "Although any one or more of the mediators in an activity system can be foregrounded, the rest are not absent and are in fact indispensible to describe the 'hows' and 'whys' of subjects' transformations of objects," (p. 407). This last part about "transformations of objects" is another way to view learning: learning equates to change in both subject(s) and object(s) as a result of activity.

In the remainder of his article, Lee:

• outlined five current challenges and shortcomings in educational research,
• described CHAT and how curriculum researchers have used it, and
• discussed future implications for use of CHAT in education research.

Five challenges in educational research
As I summarize Lee's five "predicaments" in educational research, I will note specific connections to and implications for my current project in italics:

1. Failing to acknowledge role of context. I cite "context neutrality" as a major impetus in my dissertation project on teachers and technology.
2. Seeking simplification instead of embracing complexity. Educational research often objectifies students rather than viewing them as subjects with their own objectives (objects of activity). Consequently, students are often an "under represented stakeholder voice in educational change research" (p. 414). "Unpacking the various configurations of the object," as Lee put it, is a major advantage of CHAT. In my project the participants/students are literacy teacher-learners. My goal is to understand their unique perspectives on instructional technology (IT) practices and processes. This would include their various goals and objectives with regard to IT. By glimpsing this complexity, I hope to understand variation in the overall participant experience, which might inform my own future enactments as a facilitator of online and blended learning in literacy teacher education. In my project, I rely on a companion perspective, known as "multiple realities" (Labbo & Reinking, 1999), which confronts that “common and unfortunate tendency to treat technology in relation to literacy as a monolithic, unidimensional topic and a corresponding tendency to oversimplify its use or potential use in literacy instruction” (p. 479). When IT is critiqued as misguided and ineffective, it is quite possibly due to a failure on the part of reformers, researc hers, and policymakers to acknowledge the multiple realities surrounding its implementation.
3. Failing to critique the role of power and politics: "While maintaining research ethics and researcher reflexivity have risen to the fore, one still has to be constantly mindful of ethical considerations as there is a strong tendency towards objectifying participants due to inherent power differentials. Rather than dismissing conflicts and tensions in and around educational systems as something negative or to be avoided altogether, their inevitability can be a vital impetus for improvement and renewal" (Lee, p. 406). This idea is also highly complementary to the multiple realities perspective.
4. Ignoring identity and emotions. Emotions are important to stimulating educational change but are often treated as nothing more than steppingstones to leverage change. (Consider the way educators discuss social engagement as a way to hook kids into learning, i.e. treating engagement as a step toward learning rather than integral to learning.) "Identity, which is the sense of who we are and what we stand for" (Lee, p. 406) is overlooked precisely because it is so integrated and bound up with learning, but identity and emotion are "highly pertinent, as analytic concepts to understand why people do the things that they do" (p. 406). As theoretical concepts, identity and emotion enable researchers to "better recognize and predict the extent to which people see themselves as agents with power to transform an activity system and to improve their own lives" (p. 417). Lee introduces the concept of "4th generation CHAT," which applies innovative surveying and interview techniques to reveal "these notoriously elusive social-psychological dimensions" (p. 417). In my project I deployed a data generation technique called “interactive interviewing,” in which researcher and participant each assume overlapping roles as expert and guide. The researcher and participant each bring a story to the interaction, and as they converse, they stimulate each other’s story, reflexively co-reconstructing experience through conversation (Ellis, Kiesinger, & Tillman-Healy, 1997).
5. Introducing new reforms and innovations too quickly. (I am reminded of the education truism "reform fatigue.") This last challenge introduces an apparent contradiction between CHAT, which demands a "historical," long view on reform, and the reality of rapid change in school-based reforms and interventions. Lee argues that CHAT allows for "nested levels of analysis," including that of local, situated events enacted in real-time. "This plane still remains within a larger historical frame, thereby giving both long- and short-term views of meaning-making by participants that are necessary for building an inclusive picture of change" (p. 417). So, CHAT can provide insight into new practices with respect to human agency, such as when careful "adherence to new modes of instruction turn out to short-circuit the original objectives of planners. These subtle mismatches in the object of activity have usually been only uncovered through the careful recording of classroom practices at the enacted or interactional level."  I see a major implication for my own study, which engaged participants in several new technology practices, particularly online digital video analysis.

Implications for my research
CHAT, as both theory and method, directly speaks to these challenges, as outlined above. For the second half of his article, Lee demonstrates the merits of CHAT using data from a study of inquiry-based science curriculum in a Singaporean secondary school.

CHAT also excels in interpretive, small-scale, teacher-oriented studies of educational change.  I hope to demonstrate this in my own study.

My first order of business is to unpack those many “configurations of the object.” To do this, I have engaged over the last several months in "boundary-crossing" (p. 408) with participants to identify barriers, obstacles, and contradictions within the online course. The interactive interviews served this purpose, as will upcoming “member reflections” (Tracy, 2010), which I am conducting in July.

Next, I must tell the story of the “’hows’ and ‘whys’ of subjects’ transformations of objects.” This first level of analysis will result in a case study narrative, which I am currently drafting. My case study narrative must take pains to situate the story of the course pilot within specific cultural and historical contexts.

Last, I will conduct the second stage of analysis – drafting triangle models of activity systems and jotting down ideas about different "mediators." I must analyze the tensions arising within/without the system and deliberate on ways to leverage these tensions for change. One mediating tension I am particularly curious about is how a teacher’s self-understanding (identity) as a technology user influences (or is influenced by) the online learning experience.

Questions about identity are best explored through 4th-generation activity theory. In a final post to this series, I will look at the work of two CHAT theorists, Roth and Stetsenko, who, in their own ways, have developed a unified theory for understanding identity development within complex learning systems. Their work to resolve tensions and gaps within the CHAT tradition partly inspired the design of my study.

References

Ellis, C., Kiesinger, C., & Tillmann-Healy, L. (1997). Interactive interviewing: Talking about emotional experience. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice (pp. 119–149). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

 Labbo, L. D., & Reinking, D. (1999). Negotiating the multiple realities of technology in literacy research and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 478–492. doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.4.5

 Lee, Y. J. (2011). More than just story-telling: Cultural–Historical Activity Theory as an under-utilized methodology for educational change research. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 403–424.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.

CHAT and education research (Part II of a series)