Systemic analysis of innovative research
and intervention: The CRIRES case
Thérèse Laferrière and CRIRES members
Skating on thin ice: Transforming
the way research is done
CRIRES’ methodological journey
2009
Researchers: In search of meaning to collective activity (research
that makes a difference)
Shared object: Student and School Success (SAS)
Shared metaframework: CHAT as thought- and sense-provoking regarding
our collective participation (toward a shared language, perspectives,
connected research results, actions)
2013
Researchers: Launching of a scientific international journal:
RIC: Innover dans la tradition de Vygotsky. To name what we are
doing was an innovation in itself, almost a systemic contradiction!
2013
Researchers and CRIRES Board: Progressive focus on change labs
From the abstract to the concrete: higher levels of appropriation sought
Double stimulation : participation as a shared object of collaborative
inquiry (transforming ourselves into a change lab – an intuitive move)
CRIRES’ methodological dilemma
2014
Researchers voicing the need state
- Classroom students: the learning community model
- School teachers: the professional community model
- Parents, organizational leaders: community-based models
- Policy makers: partnership convention model
Based on our knowledge of the learning sciences (ISLS/CSCL
members), design-based (implementation) research (DBIR), we
identified/created local initiatives aiming at a renewed participation
process.
Researchers responding to a need state voiced by a
community
A need state formulated by a group that comes to us.
6
Illustrations
• The learning community model for fostering
classroom students' participation (Christine
Hamel, Sandrine Turcotte)
• The school as the second level of participation,
and the professional learning community model
(Alain Breuleux)
• School-community-NGO partnerships and the
change lab approach (Rollande Deslandes, Sylvie
Barma, Chantal Trépanier, Suzanne Manningham)
• School-district-government partnerships and
participation challenges (Catherine Larouche)
The learning community model for fostering
classroom students' participation
Christine Hamel, Université Laval
Sandrine Turcotte, Université du Québec en Outaouais
Stéphane Allaire, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi
University of Twente – September 27 2013
Classroom as first level of participation
• Classroom is the first level of participation in formal
educational contexts/system
• We present 2 projects that have change in the elementary
classroom as an end goal but that take place in our respective
undergraduate classrooms
– Project 1 looks at the use of robotics in elementary classrooms
and science education
– Project 2 investigates teacher students reflective analysis on
classroom management during practicum
• Both projects are based on community of learners principles
in the classroom in order to foster classroom participation
From classroom to classroom
• In our desire to be part of the solution (instead of part of the
problem!), our own classroom approach serves as model to our
students as they reflect and construct their own representation
of what their future classroom will be like
• In our two projects, preservice students learning was the main
focus but other learning was also taken into account (pupils,
teachers, etc.)
• In both cases, we work with the continuous underlying tension
between pushing for transformations in the classroom and the
existing more traditional school culture
Project 1: Primary contradiction : using robotics in
class without linking it to curriculum
Tools
Robotics kits
Inquiry-based science instruction
RNS tools
Shared object
Subject
Learning to plan inquirybased science lessons using
robotics (theory)
Preservice teachers in
science education
course
Rules
Professional
development :
Implement what is
learned at university in
actual classroom
Lesson plan must meet
course requirements but
activity in class will not
be assessed as such
Science lessons as
« experiments and
recipes »(practice)
Community
Teacher: Acknowledges interest of pupils
but not comfortable enough to do it
themselves. but not sure how it relates to
curriculum: becomes extra work
Preservice teacher : hard to deal with
open-ended inquiry when conception of
classrom science is “good answer”oriented
Professor/researcher: provides new
participation structure that is in the
students’ ZDP
Division of labor
Teacher : Prepare pupils for robotics
lesson and welcome preservice
teacher
Preservice teacher: Develop
profesionnal identity and « test »
new conception of classroom
science
Prof/Res: Mediate theory-practice
links
Project 2:
Primary contradiction : authority or democracy ?
Tools
Collaborative prompted video
analysis from practicum
Best practices teachers clip
Shared object
Subject
Preservice teachers
Learning to teach in a
learning community
(theory)
Teaching as it is done in
schools (practice)
Rules
Community
Professional development
: Implement what is
learned at university
Cooperative teacher : irrealistic
to be democratic with some
pupils or groups. Theory does
not answer real classroom needs
Practicum requirements
to preserve the learning
environment of the pupils
Preservice teacher : hard to
achieve participative classroom
management style without a
model during practicum
Division of labor
Triad
US : Mediate theory-practice
links
CT : Give space for PT in
classroom while insuring
quality learning for student
PT: Develop profesional
identity while learning to be a
teacher
The school as the second level of participation,
and the professional learning community model
Change lab for digital literacy and
disciplinary understanding in school
Alain Breuleux and the C3-M Team
McGill University
University of Twente – September 27 2013
16
Creating, Collaborating and Computing
in Math (C3-M)*
• Enhancing the Teaching and Learning of
Mathematics Using Technology
– Student success; Understanding; Deep learning
– Teachers’ “practice shift”
• Professional Learning Network for digital literacy
and disciplinary understanding in school
– 15 teachers (elementary & secondary)
– 3 school board consultants
• A School-University Partnership
• Change Laboratory approach
•
17
*Funding from SSHRC and Québec Ministry of Education (Chantier 7)
Theoretical Commitments
Practice shift as a formative intervention and
a collaborative design-based enterprise
Brown (1992); Collins (1992); Design-based
research collective, (2003); Virkkunen &
Newnham (2013)
A focus on teacher knowledge
Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1999); Lieberman & Miller
(2001); Shulman (1986)
Fostering a culture of sharing
Becker & Riel (2000); Louis (2008)
20
Mirror data
21
2nd stimulus
A complex object, the “flipped
classroom”
An “ideal” (idealized) model that:
Emerged from the sense-making
conversations between researchers
and pedagogical consultants
Is evolving
Is shaped by the participants
22
Other 2nd stimulus: The “lesson study”
(Hart, L. C., Alston, A., & Murata, A. (2011). Lesson study research and practice in
mathematics education. New York: Springer.)
The “lesson study”: ascending from the
abstract to the concrete
• Originates from Japanese mathematics teaching
and professional development
• The germ cell, for us, includes physical classroom
visits
• In this project we aim to expand first into videobased lesson study
– Capturing meaningful* classroom activities on video
• And then on-line video-based lesson study
– Making the video captured clips available in an extranet to allow for perspective taking, interpretation, and
expansion
24
Rapid cycles from Modeling to
Implementing
• Populating a (semi)public space of emerging
practice by teacher explorers
• Engendering rather than “engineering”
• Growing from the core
• Adaptive expertise and “Social venture capital”
• Allow for legitimate peripheral participation
• An “interpretive community” (Fish, 1980)
 Interpreting “emerging practice”
• Expansive cycles of Venturing, Sharing,
Sense-making, Reflection, Adaptation
25
26
School-community-NGO partnerships,
and the change lab approach
Teacher-Parent Relations
and the Change lab approach
Rollande Deslandes, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Sylvie Barma, Université Laval
University of Twente – September 27 2013
28
Context
• Well-established knowledge over the past 30 years
of research
• --Family influence
• --School-Family Relationships
• --Rationale for positive S-F Relationships
•
--Advantages of positive S-F Relationships
(e.g., Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Deslandes, 2010, 2013; Epstein, 2001, 2011; Henderson, Mapp,
Johnson, & Davies, 2007; Hoover-Dempsey, Ice, & Whitaker, 2007;
•
•
--Complexity of S-F relationships (Deslandes, 2012)
--Fertile grounds for tensions between teachers
and parents (Deslandes, Barma, & Laferrière, 2014)
30
Capital role of 1st level
of contradictions
--Sources of change and development (Engeström, 2010)
--Systemic tensions within a collective activity that may
conduct to conflicts (Sannino, 2008) but also to
innovations aiming at changing the system (Engeström,
2010)
--Discursive manifestations of contradictions:
1) Dilemmas: expression of incompatible evaluations
between people or within a system
2) Double-binds: repeated unaccepted alternatives
3) Conflicts: disgreement, argument, criticism
4) Critical conflicts: inner doubts, feeling of being
violated or guilty (Engeström & Sannino, 2011)
Our formative intervention
• Description of the on-going Change Lab:
--9 participants: 2 teachers, 1 school principal, 2 parents, 2
Teachers Union representatives, 2 researcher-interventionists
--Two sessions: the first one (April 24, 2014) set the table
and categories of possible zones of tension were identified; the
second one that occurred at a Change Lab Conference (May 5, 2014) is
being analyzed.
• Research questions:
1) What are are the zones of tensions identified by the
participants in the S-F relations?
2) What are the inner contradictions that emerged during the
discussions between the participants?
Main findings
Discursive Manifestations of Contradictions and Examples
Linguistic Examples
Manifestations
N
Characteristics
Double- binds
5
Repeated unaccepted
--Teacher: We ask to return the response-coupon
alternatives
next day to have it in a few days. Often it is
necessary to send it a second time, then a third…
--Parent: Sometimes we’re asked for the exact
amount of money ($ 2.60) put in an envelope for
the next morning…
Critical Conflicts
Inner doubts, feeling of
being violated or guilty
Conflicts
2
Disagreement,
--Teacher: If the parent goes to the administration,
argument, criticism
it becomes threatening to the teacher. "
--Parent: Sometimes we are more in touch with
the school principal, we know him/her more
Dilemmas
5
Expression of
--Teacher: There are many messages like : do not
incompatible
forget to send my child to the reception office ...
evaluations between
because he has an appointment with the doctor.
people or within a
system
Or, they go south on vacation, or to hockey
tournaments; they want to know what they will
have to work on with their child…
CONTRADICTIONS AT EACH OF THE POLES OF THE ACTIVITY SYSTEM
TEACHERS-PARENTS RELATIONS
Communication Tools: Reply coupons with ambiguous
expectations vs reply coupons that are more transparent
and more flexible
Subjects: Teachers fear
questioning and intruding
vs Teachers engaged with
parents
Rules: Teachers prisoners
of their schedule and daily
tasks
vs Taking into account the
schedule of teachers by
the parents
Object: Keep the
status quo
vs Promote positive
teacher-parent
relationships
Community: Focus on individual
parents’ requests vs Focus on the
expectations and demands that
reflect those of the collectivity
Outcome: Do not
encourage
openness
to parental
involvement vs
Foster active
parental
involvement
Division of labor: Teachers ignored by the
parent that goes directly to the Principal
office vs
Teachers to whom the parent speaks directly
Next steps
• Mirror activity: collective analysis
• Resolution of contradictions
• Identification of the « germ cell » in the
common proximal development zone
(Lapshin, Ivanova & Chernysh, in press)
• Identify the pros and cons associated
with each of the envisioned solutions
based on teachers’ and parents’ concrete
needs.
School-Workplace:
FAST, Coop Ed (apprenticeship) programs
Sylvie Barma, Chantal Trépanier, Thérèse Laferrière
Université Laval
In Quebec, the dual system is not an
integral part of the culture
There is a rationale, however
Lifelong flexible onsite/online learning has arrived
High dropout rate, especially boys from
underprivileged areas
Vanier secondary school
Each year for the past three years, 45 high school students and a minimum of
30 businesses/organizations as partners
Musée de la civilisation
Radio-Canada
Forum jeunesse
Beenox
Office municipal d’habitation
Boîte à science
SNC Lavalin
Cégep de Limoilou
CERFO
Frima studios
La Capitale Groupe financier
MAPAQ
Savie
VETIQ
Etc.
Enhancing the school year
with coop ed activities and meaning
Dual context of student participation
Tools
Conventional resources
Digital resources
Potentially shared object
A coop ed program
designed to engage
students showing lack of
interest in S&T and at risk
of dropping out
Subject
Teacher
Community
Policies
Conformity/ School principal
Creativity Teachers
Students
Parents
Counselors &
Other educators
Tools
Digital & material
resources
Subject
Companion
Division
of labor
School
work
centered
on the
curriculum
Division
of labor
Business
work
centered on
productivity
Community Policies
Business
Conformity/
companion Creativity
Supervisors
Students
Positive research results
- Academic learning outcomes
- Improved relationship to
school and S&T
2014 research report
Student participation in a coop ed program
Tools
Digital & material resources
Coop ed program
Object
Student engagement in
meaning making regarding
learning and work
Subject
Student
FAST community
Rules & policies
Teachers, school principal,
Adaptation:
supervisors, companions,
• Codes of behavior
• Organizational rules parents, external partners,
other students, teachers,
school principals
Object-outcome
Student personal/
professional development
Division of labor
More autonomy and
responsibility
Coop ed program and school-based educators
Tools
Digital & material resources
Coop ed program
Object
Student-centered approach
Subject
Teacher
Counselor
Rules & policies
• Allowing
power sharing
FAST community
Teachers, school principal,
supervisors, companions,
parents, external partners,
other students, teachers,
school principals
Object-outcome
Students that benefit from a
coop ed program (meaning
making as to the value of S&T
Division of labor
Adaptation
• Collaboration w/ other
educators
School-Family support for Aboriginal students
Systemic Model of the Sensitive Interaction Zone
Understanding support for Aboriginal students
Suzanne Manningham
Université Laval
Systemic Model of the Sensitive Interaction Zone
Understanding support for Aboriginal student
(Manningham,2011) *
MACROSYSTEM
Aboriginal Community and
School board
EXOSYSTEM
Family and
School personnel
Aboriginal and nonAboriginal History
MICROSYSTEM
Teacher
MESOSYSTEM
Aboriginal
student
ONTOSYSTEM
SENSITIVE INTERACTION ZONE
____________________
*Adapted from Intercultural-systemic model of Cohen-Emerique (2000) and Cultural-Historical Theory of Vygotsky (1934/1978)
Suzanne Manningham - ISCAR 2104
Traditional and NorthAmerican rules of conduct
School-district-government partnerships
and participation challenges
Catherine Larouche, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi
Thérèse Laferrière, Université Laval
University of Twente – September 27 2013
Administrative structure of the
Quebec school system
MELS
MELS
Cegeps
School
boards
Elementary
schools
High schools
(colleges)
Professional
training
Adult
education
Universities
The interventionist’s research project
Partnership agreements: a system-wide evaluation
of its implementation and results
Objective 1. Identification of the obstacles,
favorable conditions, and contradictions
Objective 2. Conciliation of the divergent positions
and research solutions
50
The new mode of school governance
(MELS, Implementation Guide, 2008)
Centralization
vs
Decentralization
Accountability
School’s
educational
project
CGRE
Educational
attainment
School board
strategic plan
CP
MELS
Strategic plan
Objective 1
Releasing continuities, ruptures, contradictions, and
considered solutions.
Semi-directed interviews (10 with general or deputee
director of school board)
52
First level of contradiction
• The partnership agreement’s value is not only
associated with its use, it is also related to its
exchange in the system, which poses a dilemma
from the beginning in (dual nature) the face of
each component of the activity system.
• Contradictions relating to the exchange of CP in
the system are paramount here. The MELS has
negotiated and imposed targets to be achieved
without investing additional funds.
53
Second Level of Contradiction
Tools
New monitoring tools vs
local tools
Target to be achieved vs lack
of valid indicators for some
Object:
targets
Contradictions in
assessment system and
accountability
Expected Results
School boards
(DG or DG)
New model of partnership
for accountability
and improving the success
Increase of workload
Additional pressure
Educational vs administrative role
Rules and routines
New rules for monitoring
Autonomy (legal framework)
vs political will
54
Community
Need MELS`support vs lack of support
Stakeholders`s resistance
( directions, teachers, unions).
Work organization:
New responsibilities
between teachers, ortho, psycho
Third level of contradiction
• Motivations related to the production of the
object interfere with the prevailing practice of
the activity. These contradictions may arise in
the subject itself or at the cultural level of the
community.
– Local culture (down-top)
vs political will (top-down)
– Economic vision vs ecological vision
– Assessment control vs assessment to evolve
– Change in practice, why?
55
Fourth Level Contradiction
MELS
School board
Object
School
Teachers
56
Objective 2:
Conciliation of the divergent positions and
research solution
Change laboratory
57
CSBP Planning
• Culture of achievement of students
assessment established for several years
• Development of school board tests for
several years with the participation of
teachers
• Culture of situation assessment (Agir
Autrement) in all schools of the school board
58
The Team
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
59
Catherine Larouche, Professor, UQAC
Marie-Ève Lebel, School Board Trustee, CSPB
Serge Bergeron, Director General, CSPB
Nicole Bilodeau, Principal, école primaire Benoît-Duhamel
Dany Dufour, Principal, école secondaire Des Chutes
Mona Tremblay, Teacher, école primaire Notre-Dame
Dany Privé, Teacher, école secondaire Cité étudiante Roberval
Sylvain Bouchard, Regional Director Saguenay Lac-St-Jean
Thérèse Laferrière, Université Laval
The process of a laboratory for change
(adaptation Engeström & al., 1996, p.11)
1. Generate a
portrait of the
situation
2. Analysis of the
situation
6. Promote and
consolidate
5. Implementation
of the new model
3. Create a new
model
4. Concretize,
testing the new
project
Example of an artifact
Assessment control
vs Evaluation for
improvement
Consultation and
Collaboration Process
Seriousness of the approach
Analysis of success factors
Situation
Analysis
Choice of
guidelines
Evaluation
Validity
Availability
Temporality
Comparability
Choosing
indicators
Resources available
relating to research
relating to success factors
Best Practices
5 common goals
Relevance
Clarity
Range
Choice of
objectives
Choice of
means
Choice of
targets
Centralization
Dual constraint
Relevance and consistency
Number
Decentralization
Conception of the RBM
Support of stakeholders
How can they be determined?
Consequences
Perverse effects
Pressure on teachers
Theoretical underpinnings, context, and
object-outcome
Sylvie Barma and Fernand Gervais,Université Laval
University of Twente – September 27 2013
Wrapping up:
Linking theory and practice
1st generation CHAT (Vygotsky, 1978)
• Human is defined by its activity with objects and
actors in its environment.
“We are what we do” (Sylvia Scribner)
“The context is the content”
• The activity makes sense both in terms of individual
subjects history and in terms of their roots in a
community.
• The material and symbolic objects are cultural
products entities in their own right and guide the
activity of an individual.
64
Prerequisites
• Human contexts are conflictual but the fact that there are
conflicting motivations leading to the search for solutions to
give a new meaning ...
• It’s not causality but intentionality.
• Facing a situation, a subject will make a decision based on its
own judgment.. (A. Giddens, the competent actor)
• HIS ACTION CAN’T BE PREDICTED.
• As a researcher(s), we must document the search for meaning
(see Sannino, 2008).
• It is through the control of socially constructed tools that the
subject creates new meanings and models of new social
structures around him…
65
Nature of contradictions
• Rooted in human activity
• Their resolution is done through the practice
• Systemic analysis of internal tensions within an activity
system or between systems
• They are instrumental to understanding the intent of the
activity and its development (agency)
66
Levels of contradictions
• The need state: questioning the practice.
• The analysis of the double bind: second level
of contradiction.
• Implementation of the new practice: third
level of contradiction.
• This is a tension between the activity system
and neighboring systems that share the same
learning object: 4th level of contradiction.
67
1st level of contradiction
The need state: questioning the practice: the first phase of the expansion
cycle.
In pre-capitalist society, forcible suppression of the tension .....
In a capitalist society due to the convenience of the object produce:
– use-value and exchange value of the object
– this will have an effect on the rest of the triangle of activity and lead us
to the double bind ....
68
2nd level of contradiction
• Analysis of the double bind:
• This is the second phase of the expansion cycle
• These contradictions (systemic internal tensions)
are between the elements, the components of the
activity system that is central to the study.
• This step leads to a more advanced modeling of
the activity (the third stage of the expansion cycle)
new form.
69
The challenges we faced ie our
appropriation of the Change Lab
1) Epistemology: follow a dialectical process.
2) Combine the design (modeling new practices) and the implementation of
interventions.
3) Avoid reify the triangle and consider it as a tool to promote and read the change.
4) Requires close collaboration between practitioners and professionals.
5) Requires a commitment to change practices.
6) Change Lab is a form of collective learning.
7) Develop jointly cycles of change over a long period of time (2-5 years).
70