 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 21, Issue 1, Article 1 (Dec., 2021) |
Studies conducted in the context of curriculum reforms are generally complex. This is the case because teaching and learning involve many variables in society. According to Connell (1992), curriculum is a social process unfolding in a social milieu (p.136). Indeed, curriculum processes involve people and their things in different contexts of social interactions. Connell identifies two aspects believed to shape the curriculum. The "organizational and industrial imperatives of the school and school system" is one of them. Equally important, the “occupational and professional needs of teachers as a workforce” shape the curriculum (p.137). Therefore, in this milieu, the teachers’ agency is at the centre of curriculum change.
According to Alvunger et.al. (2017), the teachers’ actions are mainly those of transforming the curriculum content into a ‘form that is intelligible and interesting for pupils to learn’ (p.2). The teacher’s actions or work are complex yet important because of its practical situatedness. Hence, teachers have to navigate their way through this complexity to provide the object of the curriculum effectively. Furthermore, this work is complicated by another element- learners in the social milieu. Learners bring their diverse backgrounds into the classroom context (Martin & Dismuke, 2018).Teachers, such as the participant teacher in this study, participate in their work and in this complexity. That is, they teach in the context of complex and dynamic societal transitions. Yet, they are expected to adapt their knowledge and practices while simultaneously demonstrating efficient and effective facilitation of learning.
In the purposes of the current study and for a better understanding of contexts, teachers require multiple lenses and/or tools. A theoretical framework with multiple perspectives enhances connections between variables within the phenomena under consideration. Therefore, in this paper, Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivism is used to explain a teacher’s conceptions in their co-construction of knowledge with their learners. That is, in the facilitation of learning. Further, Holland and Lave’s (2009) social practice theory (SPT) is utilised to explain the teacher and their classroom interactions with learners. According to this theory, “minds do not act separately from their bodies, nor does knowledge act separately from engagement in practice” (p.2). Because teaching is an identity work, it is argued that teachers change in ‘self and identity’ as their work changes, such as in socially-driven curriculum reform contexts.
Also, the SPT explains the teachers’ historical background and how it may affect their thinking and associated practices. It may also help to explain "...the historical production of persons in practice... on the ongoing struggles that develop across activities (p.4). That is, the SPT together with Holland et.al.’s (1998) figured worlds, may provide the capacity to address individual teacher differences within the same contexts of their work.
Holland et.al.’s (1998) notion of figured worlds refers to
“…a realm of interpretation that is socially and culturally constructed…” where in “particular characters and actors are recognised, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others” (p.52)Thus, figured worlds may be used as a concept to explain a teacher’s interactions with learners and/or objects in teaching. In fact, this may be more relevant amid context of a changing curriculum, as Bragg (2013) asserts. Furthermore, in such situations or contexts, a changing identity or uncertainty with their changing work acts or practises can be identified, explained, and/or understood in the midst of curriculum changes. Donato and Davin (2018) posit that these theories “from the socio-cultural and historical origins as history-in person processes” (p.740) are suitable for complex social situations.
