Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 217–233 | Cite as

The challenge of change: Using activity theory to understand a cultural innovation

  • Roseanna Bourke
  • Alyson McGee
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article explains how an inservice teacher education organisation in New Zealand embarked on a cultural innovation to challenge and build bicultural pedagogies, policies and practices. To understand the process and the impact of a three-year cultural innovation both intended and unintended changes need to be explored. Using a framework of second generation cultural historical activity theory, the article examines the individual and institutional changes, exposing both tensions and learning. Key successful factors included establishing a clearly recognized purpose, widening individual and group involvement, and creating flexibility to build a strong platform to support the innovation. However, tensions were created when externally imposed factors such as changes in government policy and re-prioritization of funding were introduced. The external tensions challenged the internal organisational structures and stability, which in turn affected the cultural innovation and destabilised the change process.

Keywords

Cultural innovation Inservice teacher educators Organisational change Cultural historical activity theory 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Mā rātou, Mā koutou, Mā mātou, Mā tātou. We acknowledge the inservice teacher educators, past and present, who have contributed, formally and informally, to the knowledge and wisdom within the Centre.

References

  1. Baird, J. A. (2009). Macro and micro influences on assessment practice. Assessment in Education: Principlesm, Policy & Practice, 16(2), 127–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevan-Brown, J. (2003). The cultural self-review. Providing culturally effective, inclusive education for Māori learners. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2009). Te Kotahitanga: Addressing educational disparities facing Māori students in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 734–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bourke, R., McGee, A., & O’Neill, J. (2008). Theorising teacher learning. In R. Bourke, A. Lawrence, A. McGee, J. O’Neill, & J. Curzon (Eds.), Talk about learning. Working alongside teachers (pp. 1–26). Auckland: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  6. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Educational innovation and the problem of scale. In B. L. Schneider & S. K. McDonald (Eds.), Scale-up in education: Ideas in principle, Vol. 1 (pp. 19–36). Plymouth: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Daniels, H. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and professional learning. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(2), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, S. M., Howes, A. J., & Farrell, P. (2008). Tensions and dilemmas as drivers for change in an analysis of joint working between teachers and educational psychologists. School Psychology International, 29, 400–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, A. (2008). Activity theory and small-scale interventions in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 375–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.Google Scholar
  13. Engeström, Y. (2009). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning. Learning theories in their own words (pp. 53–74). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–20.Google Scholar
  15. Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher approaches to information and communication technologies. Computers & Education, 53, 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leadbetter, J. (2005). Activity theory as a conceptual framework and analytical tool within the practice of educational psychology. Educational and Child Psychology, 22(1), 18–28.Google Scholar
  17. Leadbetter, J. (2008). Learning in and for interagency working: Making links between practice development and structured reflection. Learning in Health & Social Care, 7(4), 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martínez Arbelaiz, A., & Correa Gorospe, M. J. (2009). Can the grammar of schooling be changed? Computers & Education, 53, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2004). Trusting the teacher: Evaluating educational innovation. Evaluation, 10, 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry of Education. (2009). Ka Hikitia—Managing for success: The Māori education strategy 2008–2012. Updated 2009. New Zealand: Wellington.Google Scholar
  21. Ministry of Social Development. (2010). The Social Report 2010. Ministry of Social Development, Wellington, New Zealand. http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/.
  22. Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principles of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442–457.Google Scholar
  23. Roth, M. W., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 2, 186–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sannino, A., & Nocon, H. (2008). Introduction: Activity theory and school innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shortland-Nuku, C. (2000). A conceptual framework for the Māori Mainstream Te Kauhua Pilot. A discussion document prepared for the Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  26. Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2003). It’s about learning (and it’s about time): What’s in it for schools? London: Routledge Farmer.Google Scholar
  27. Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. Brussells: International Academy of Education.Google Scholar
  28. Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: An alternative policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse learners. Review of Research in Education, 32, 328–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Towndrow, P., Silver, R., & Albright, J. (2010). Setting expectations for educational innovations. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  31. Webb, M., & Jones, J. (2009). Exploring tensions in developing assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(2), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yamazumi, K. (2008). A hybrid activity system as educational innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Educational Psychology and PedagogyVictoria UniversityWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of Educational StudiesMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options