The “golden key”: A novel approach to teaching/learning Biology in a secondary school in Brazil: A cultural historical activity theory approach.
Abstract
The importance of developing students’ conceptual understanding of biological science in school is well established as a precursor to future development (Cachapuz et al. 2005). However, students continue to underperform in this important scholastic area due in large part to not engaging in the deeper concepts taught. In this article we investigate an interdisciplinary approach to teaching biology in a school in Brazil. We draw on the theoretical concepts provided by Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to unpack how interdisciplinary teaching, across different activity systems, can lead to shifts in the activity systems, with students developing a deeper conceptual understanding of biology. Seven teachers (from chemistry, biology, the arts, and geography) and 196 students form the participants in this study. Findings indicate that contradictions arising both within and between activity systems across the teaching contexts led to students’ object shifting from merely covering the curriculum to developing a deeper understanding of biological concepts.
Downloads
References
Ah-Nam, L. and K. Osman. 2017. “Developing 21st century skills through a constructivist-constructionist learning environment.” K-12 Stem Education 3(2): 205‒216.
Barwell, R. 2016. “Formal and informal mathematical discourses: Bakhtin and Vygotsky, dialogue and dialectic.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 92: 331‒345.
Bozkurt, G. 2017. “Social Constructivism: Does It Succeed in Reconciling Individual Cognition with Social Teaching and Learning Practices in Mathematics?” Journal of Education and Practice 8(3): 210‒218.
Cachapuz, António, Daniel Gil-Pérez, A. M. P. de Carvalho, João Praia, and Amparo Vilches. 2005. The necessary renewal of science teaching. São Paulo: Cortez.
Daniels, H. 2001. Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Dioum, B. 1968. “Speech to the General Assembly of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, New Delhi, India.” http://everything2.com/title/Baba+Dioum.
Duit, Reinders, Fred Goldberg, and Hans Niedderer. (Ed.). 1992. “Research in physics learning: theoretical and empirical studies.” In Proceedings of an International Workshop
held at the University of Bremen, March 4‒8, 1991, 380‒397. Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretic approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Engeström, Y., R. Miettinen, and R. Punamaki. 1999. Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Furió e Vilches, A. 1997. “Student attitudes toward science and science, technology and society.” In La enseñanza y el aprendizaje de las ciencias de la naturaleza en la educación secundaria, ed. L. Em del Carmen. Barcelona: Horsori.
Giordan, A. 1997. “The sciences and techniques in the culture of the 2000s?” Kikirikí n. 33‒34, 44‒45.
Hardman, J. 2015. “Pedagogical variation with computers in mathematics classrooms: A cultural historical activity theory analysis.” Psychology in Society (48): 47‒76.
Hoadley, U. 2017. Pedagogy in poverty: Lessons from twenty years of curriculum reform in South Africa. Routledge
Kaptelinin, V. 1997. “Computer mediated activity: Functional organs in social and developmental contexts.” In Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and human-computer interaction, ed. B. Nardi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Karpov, Y. V. 2005. The neo-Vygotskian approach to child development. Cambridge University Press.
Kuutti, K. 1996. “Activity Theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research.” In Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and human-computer interaction, ed. B. Nardi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lakkala, M., H. Muukkonen, and K. Hakkarainen. 2005. “Patterns of scaffolding in computer-mediated collaborative inquiry.” Mentoring & Tutoring 13(2): 281–300.
Lakkala, M., J. Lallimo, and K. Hakkarainen. 2005. “Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study.” Computers & Education 45(3): 337‒356.
Leontiev, A. N. 1981. “The problem of activity in psychology.” In The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, ed. J. V. Wertsch. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Lerman, S. 2001. “Cultural, discursive psychology: A sociocultural approach to studying the teaching and learning of mathematics.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 46: 87‒113.
Lim, C. P. 2001. “Object of the activity systems as a major barrier to the creative use of ICT in schools.” Australian Journal of Educational Technology 17(3): 295‒312.
Lim, C. P. and C. S. Chai. 2004. “An activity theoretical approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools: Orienting activities and learner autonomy.” Computers and Education 43(1): 215‒236.
Lim, C. P. and D. Hang. 2003. “An Activity Theory approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools.” Computers & Education 41: 49‒63.
Lin, W. J. 1998. “The Effects of Restructuring Biology Teaching by a Constructivist Teaching Approach: An Action Research.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA, April 19‒22.
Mercer, N. 2000a. “How is language used as a medium for classroom education?” In The Routledge international companion to education, ed. B. Moon, S. Brown and M. Ben-Perez. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. 2000b. Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. 2010. “The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 80(1): 1‒14.
Mercer, N. and Staarman J. Kleine. 2005. “Dialogue and activity: A methodological gap that needs to be filled.” Paper presented at the First ISCAR Congress (International Society for Cultural and Activity Research), Seville, Spain.
Mercer, N., R. Wegerif, and L. Dawes. 1999. Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal 25(1): 95‒111.
Roth, W-M. and Y-J. Lee. 2007. “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory.” Review of Educational Research 77: 186‒232.
Venkat, H. and J. Adler. 2008. “Expanding the foci of activity theory: Accessing the broader contexts and experiences of mathematics education reform.” Educational Review 60(2): 127‒140.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and language, ed. Alex Kozulin. Translated by E. Hanfmann and G. Vakar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yin, R. K. 1981. “The case study as a serious research strategy.” Knowledge 3(1): 97‒114.
Copyright (c) 2021 J. Hardman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This journal is an open access journal, and the authors and journal should be properly acknowledged, when works are cited.
Authors, copyright holders, may use the publishers version for teaching purposes, in books, theses, dissertations, conferences and conference papers.
A copy of the authors' publishers version may also be hosted on the following websites:
- Non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
- Institutional webpage.
- Authors Institutional Repository.
The following notice should accompany such a posting on the website: This is an electronic version of an article published in SAJHE, Volume XXX, number XXX, pages XXX “XXX", DOI. Authors should also supply a hyperlink to the original paper or indicate where the original paper (http://www.journals.ac.za/index.php/SAJHE) may be found.
Authors publishers version, affiliated with the Stellenbosch University will be automatically deposited in the University Institutional Repository SUNScholar.
Articles as a whole, may not be re-published with another journal.
The following license applies:
Attribution CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
