Search

The teacher’s role in the university classroom has traditionally been to present the syllabus to listening students. In Norway new rules have been introduced for the activity in this classroom. The overarching goal for the teaching is to organize a learning situation that makes the students active learners. The article deals with the teacher as a researcher, and focuses on how innovative actions can be implemented by the teacher and studied from a researcher point of view. The text presents cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) as both the theoretical framework for the organized actions in the classroom and as an approach for studying the classroom processes. The article gives an overview over a material that can be gathered in a classroom characterized by student activity. It ends by reflections on how development in one classroom can be transferred to other classrooms.

Background: Our theoretical perspectives direct ourresearch processes. The article contributes to the debateon Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) andDewey’s idea-based social constructivism, and to thedebate on methodology and how the researcher’s theoreticalstance guides the researcher in his or her work.Purpose: The article presents fundamental ideaswithin CHAT and Dewey’s idea-based social constructivism.The purpose of the text is to discuss and examinehow ideas in these two theories guide educationalresearch conducted within the framework of these twoapproaches. Furthermore, the article aims to contributeto the discussion on CHAT and Dewey’s theory.Sources of evidence: Ideas based on Vygotsky’stheories, represented mainly by James Wertsch, MichaelCole, Barbara Rogoff and Yrjö Engeström, andDewey’s ideas, are examined and discussed in relationto educational research. Furthermore, statements madeby Mietinnen, Garrison and Rorty are taken into accountin the discussion on the two outlined theories.Main argument: When CHAT and Dewey’s theoryguide researchers in their work, they have to take thecontext or situation into consideration. Artefacts aretreated as part of this context, and therefore have to bea focal point of the research. In educational research theclassroom and the teacher are also central parts of thelearning environment or context. The teacher is the oneto form the learning environment in which the pupilsthink and act, and therefore, the teacher’s role in theclassroom is important. If researchers are to manage tofocus on pupils’ learning, they must direct their researchfocus both on the teacher as an organizer of the activitiesand on the collaborating and supporting processes between the teacher and the pupils, and between thepupils. This means that the research focus has to includeboth activity and dialogue, which includes processes inall their complexity.Conclusions: Mediating artefacts play a central roleboth in CHAT and Dewey’s theory. If the researcher isto ascertain what the pupils learn when using specificartefacts, he or she will have to study the activities orprocesses within which these learning aids are used.This indicates that the researcher has to study learningprocesses in progress. Garrison states that Dewey’s approachis a philosophy of cultural development. Miettinenfinds that Dewey’s theory does not serve as thefoundation for both historical and cultural analyses ofaction. I disagree with Rorty and Mietinnen, and ratherfollow Garrison’s lead. In both theories, social, culturaland historical factors are, in my opinion, viewed asdecisive factors intertwined in what happens here andnow. Therefore the setting that frames the activity withits social, cultural and historical aspects also has to bebrought into focus in one’s research activity.

Different paradigms or perspectives function as the point of departure and framework for research. In this article ethical issues in the positivist and constructivist paradigms are presented. The article points out that more or less the same ethical codes are used in these paradigms, but with some nuanced interpretations. CHAT (cultural historical activity theory) is presented as a third paradigm. While conducting research, one intention within this paradigm is to change and improve practice. This means that the researcher and the research participants during the research process together set the goals for the work and try to change practice en route to these goals. The relation between the researcher and the research participants is different than in the other two presented paradigms. This means that research in the CHAT paradigm also needs to be guided by different ethical codes. The purpose of this article is to show how some of the traditional ethical codes which direct research both in the positivist and constructivist paradigm change and are also inadequate in the CHAT paradigm. The article presents and discusses ethical codes that challenge the researchers’ communicative, social and knowledge competence.