Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 1103–1113 | Cite as

The relationship between passibility, agency and social interaction and its relevance for research and pedagogy

  • Susan A. Kirch
  • Jasmine Y. Ma
Forum
First Online:

Abstract

The interaction analysis presented by Kim and Roth examines nine students, their teachers, the learning task and materials in a mixed second and third grade science classroom during the school day. In the research narrative readers are introduced to two resourceful and creative groups of students as they work on a task assigned by their teacher—to cantilever a pizza box over the edge of a student desk. Readers are given glimpses (through images and transcripts) of the inventive ways each group solved the cantilever problem. Sometimes the children disregarded the design constraints, but even after compliance they managed to successfully solve the problem. The point of the learning task was not clearly stated, but readers are told the unit focused on investigating forces, forces in equilibrium, and structures as well as different forces (push, pull, etc.), properties of materials, and the relations between weight and balance while building structures. Kim and Roth were specifically interested in using this session to investigate and resolve the problem of learning as described by socio-cultural theorists as, how does a learner orient toward a learning outcome when they cannot do that until they have learned it? To answer this question Kim and Roth argued that learners (in engineering design) learn when and because: (1) they are open to be affected by the responses of materials to student action (i.e. student and material agency and physical touch) (2) their bodies are endowed with the capacity to be affected (i.e. passibility), and (3) knowledge and understanding emerge as and in social relations first. In their analysis, Kim and Roth argued that knowledge and knowing-how depend on these three universal processes. The authors further theorized the concept of passibility. Included in their theory of passibility was the claim that passibility is necessary for agency. After reading this paper we found we had many questions about Kim and Roth’s analysis, context, and assertions, but we decided to focus this forum response on the problem of the learner and the solutions posed by Kim and Roth as well as the proposed relationship between passibility and agency.

Keywords

Agency Passibility Pedagogy Problem of learner Activity theory 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aidarova, L. (1982). Child development and education. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Arievitch, I. M., & Stetsenko, A. (2000). The quality of cultural tools and cognitive development: Gal’perin’s perspective and its implications. Human Development, 43, 69–92. doi: 10.1159/000022661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker, C. (2012). Cultural studies: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499–518. doi: 10.3102/00346543053004499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula. In J. Kilpatrick (Ed.), Survey of applied soviet research in school mathematics education (English edition) (Vol. 2). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  6. Davydov, V. V. (2008). Problems of developmental instruction: A theoretical and experimental psychological study. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Engeström, J. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  8. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gal’perin, P. Y. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological intervention. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 30, 60–80. doi: 10.2753/RPO1061-0405300460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Giest, H., & Lompscher, J. (2003). Formation of learning activity and theoretical thinking in science teaching. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 267–288). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840975.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hedegaard, M. (Ed.). (2001). Learning in classrooms: A cultural-historical approach. Oakville, CT: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Henry, M. (2000). Incarnation: une philosophie de la chair [Incarnation: A philosophy of the flesh]. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  14. Inglod, T. (2010). Drawing together materials, gestures, lines. In T. Otto & N. Bubandt (Eds.), Experiments in holism (pp. 299–313). New York: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Karpov, Y. (2014). Vygotsky for educators. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781107588318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karpov, Y., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky’s concept of mediation: Implications for instruction. American Psychologist, 53, 27–36. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leont’ev, A. N. (1959). Problemj razvitija psixiki [Problems of the development of mind]. Moscow, USSR: Akademii Pedagogiceskix Nauk.Google Scholar
  21. Lompscher, J. (1999). Activity formation as an alternative strategy of instruction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 264–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511812774.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori method. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  23. Nespor, J. (2004). Educational scale-making. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 12, 309–326. doi: 10.1080/14681360400200205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books. doi: 10.1037/11168-000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmittau, J. (2003). Cultural-historical activity theory and mathematics education. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 225–245). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840975.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sewell, W. H, Jr. (2005). Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226749198.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 427–515. doi: 10.3102/0034654308317473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Hanley, P., & Thurston, A. (2014). Experimental evaluations of elementary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 870–901. doi: 10.1002/tea.21139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vianna, E., & Stetsenko, A. (2011). Connecting learning and identity development through a Transformative Activist Stance: Application in adolescent development in a child welfare program. Human Development, 54, 313–338. doi: 10.1159/000331484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zuckerman, G. A., Chudinova, E. V., & Khavkin, E. E. (1998). Inquiry as a pivotal element of knowledge acquisition within the Vygotskian paradigm: Building a science curriculum for the elementary school. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 201–233. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1602_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and LearningNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options