ISCAR 2011 Symposium: Identity in education

3,187 views

Published on

ISCAR, Rome, 2011

Theme: School in work, the role of apprenticeship, identity, mind and work

Symposium
dentity in education: the potentials and challenges of theoretical and analytical diversity

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,187
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,027
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • ZoPID: “In this definition, "positioning" refers to self-positionings of an individual which reveal their view of "the kind of person they are" in terms of roles and affiliations, and "other-positionings" of the same individual which reveal the expectations of those others for that individual's roles and affiliations (e.g., Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Gee, 2000; Hermans, 2001; Holland, et al., 1998; Polman & Miller, 2010; Yoon, 2008). "Stance" refers to the resistance or appropriation of the identity implications of an act by the actor (Polman, 2006). Like the ZPD, the ZPID is a conceptual horizon of possibilities for development beyond the already-achieved state. In this case, already-achieved and agreed-upon positionings and prior stances of appropriation to one's identity don't represent change, so they are not in the zone; other-positionings that are so distant from individuals' prior experience that they are as yet unimaginable for them are beyond their zone. What is in the zone are steps along possible identity development pathways that the individual is capable of recognizing and willing to explore; not all these pathways will be taken a long distance but they are related enough to that individual's past understanding and identification to be imaginable and explorable.”
  • A “trajectory of identification” follows any of the arrows from past to present to future. There are multiple trajectories in play at any time, for any individual
  • ISCAR 2011 Symposium: Identity in education

    1. 1. SYMPOSIUMIdentity in education: the potentials and challenges of theoretical and analytical diversity<br />Theme: School in work, the role of apprenticeship, identity, mind and work<br />ISCAR, Rome, 2011<br /> <br />
    2. 2. Objective of symposium<br />Generate thoughts and discussion about the field of research and theory concerned with identity development and education by presenting three papers<br />that connect identity/(self) and education that present interesting ideas with a general common basis<br /> that reflect the diffusion and the problem of making research in the area connect, complement and build on each other<br />that were published in a the special issue of Revista de Educación – Identity and Education<br />
    3. 3. Structure of the presentations<br />Research focus<br />Basic definition of identity<br />Theoretical framework<br />Research question/-s<br />Results<br />Methodology<br />Main conclusions<br />Discussion<br />
    4. 4. The Construction o Self in Educational Setting: A Cultural Psychological Aproacchs<br />Manuel L. de la Mata & Andrés Santamaría<br />University of Seville<br />Laboratorio de Actividad Humana<br />
    5. 5. Research focus<br /><ul><li>Construction of self in the context of formal education activities
    6. 6. Why this research question?
    7. 7. Previous research about the influence of formal schooling in cognitive processes
    8. 8. No studies about formal schooling, self and autobiographical memory
    9. 9. Theoretical ideas about formal schooling as promoting an independent construal of the self (Greenfield, Kagitçibasi, Keller).</li></li></ul><li>Basic definition of identity<br /><ul><li>Identity as Self. Two components :
    10. 10. Agent (I) (G.H. Mead)
    11. 11. Reflection (Me) (Mead)
    12. 12. Characteristics of the Self
    13. 13. Action (acts of identification)
    14. 14. Distributed. Include the others (interpersonal and cultural plane).
    15. 15. Dialogical.
    16. 16. Storied (mediated by narrative)
    17. 17. Very close relationship Self-Autobiographical Memory.</li></li></ul><li>Self & Narrative<br /><ul><li>The Self as a personalnarrative. A Life-story(Bruner, 2003; McAdams, 2001).
    18. 18. The narrative form incorporates the structure of events and perspectives, goals, temporal context, causal structure (landscape of action, and motivations, mental states, etc. (landscape of consciousness) (Bruner, 1986).
    19. 19. Very close relationship Self-AM.
    20. 20. As any narrative, the Self is mediated by semiotic tools that the individuals appropriate along their life.</li></li></ul><li>Self, AM & Narrative (2)<br /><ul><li>Narratives are rooted in implicit cultural models about what a person should be.
    21. 21. These models provide guidelines for the construction of the self (self-construal)
    22. 22. AM as story.
    23. 23. Social and self functions of AM.
    24. 24. Self as central protagonist and story teller (dialogical view).</li></li></ul><li>Theoretical framework<br /><ul><li>Cross-cultural research comparing schooled and non-schooled people (categorization, memory, reasoning and problem solving…).
    25. 25. Relationship between culture and self-construal: independent vs. interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
    26. 26. Differences in self-construal related to differences in AM:
    27. 27. Age at the earliest memory.
    28. 28. Memory volume & Elaboration.
    29. 29. Emotionality.
    30. 30. Themes (e.g. agency vs. relation)
    31. 31. Specificity.</li></li></ul><li>Theoretical framework (2)<br /><ul><li>Relationship between literacy and literary practices and the modern concept of mind (Olson, 1994, 1997):
    32. 32. Mind as an entity that contents ideas and mental states (thoughts, memories, beliefs….).
    33. 33. Thinking an “epistemic” activity.
    34. 34. Autonomous individual, responsible of his/her mental states and actions.
    35. 35. Self-consciousness. </li></li></ul><li>The study: Research questions<br /><ul><li>To analyse the relationship between schooling experience, AM and self through the study of earliest autobiographical memories.
    36. 36. To analyse some narrative aspects (i.e. the use of action & mental verbs and metacognitive evaluations) of the earliest memories.</li></li></ul><li>Methodology<br /><ul><li>60 participants from Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, (Mexico).
    37. 37. Gender: 30 males and 30 females.
    38. 38. Schooling background:
    39. 39. 20 (literacy level)
    40. 40. 20 (basic level)
    41. 41. 20 (university level)
    42. 42. Oral interviews about earliest personal memories. Transcription of these memories </li></li></ul><li>Methodology: Categories<br />AM<br /><ul><li>Age at the earliest memory (months)
    43. 43. Memory content:
    44. 44. individual
    45. 45. social
    46. 46. Memory specificity:
    47. 47. specific
    48. 48. general
    49. 49. Emotional content</li></ul>Self<br /><ul><li>Autonomous orientation
    50. 50. Other-self ratio
    51. 51. Self description</li></li></ul><li>Methodology: Narrative Analysis<br /> ActionVerbs units<br /> Mental verbs units:<br /> Cognitive<br /> Intentional<br /> Emotional<br /> Metacognitive units<br />Smorti, A. (2004). Narrative strategies among early adolescents involved in bully-victim relationships. Journal of School Violence, 4(1), 5-27<br />
    52. 52. Results: Autobiographical memory<br />Schooling experience: F =17.68; df=2; p =.000**, η2 =.424<br />
    53. 53. Results: Autobiographical memory<br />Schooling experience:<br />χ2=9.448; df =2; p =.009 **<br />Schooling experience: <br />χ2=6.652; df =2; p =.036 *<br />
    54. 54. Results: Self<br />Schooling experience & Self-Description: F =4.554; df =2; p =.015*<br />
    55. 55. Results: Narrative Analysis<br />
    56. 56. Results: Narrative Analysis<br />Schooling Level: F = 7,975; df= 2; p = .001, η2 = .249<br />
    57. 57. Results: Narrative Analysis<br />Schooling Level: F = 7,333; df= 2; p = .002, η2 = .234<br />
    58. 58. Results: Narrative Analysis<br />Schooling Level: F = 3,583; df= 2; p = .035, η2 = .130<br />
    59. 59. Discussion<br /><ul><li>University participants memories were earlier, more individual and more specific than memories of the other participants.
    60. 60. Differences in self-description related to schooling level: University participants showed a higher index of agency than the other participants.
    61. 61. Differences in the use of mental states (both cognitive and emotional) verbs and metacognitive units between schooling levels. Participants with higher levels of schooling used more mental verbs and metacognitive expressions in their earliest memories.</li></li></ul><li>Preliminary conclusions<br /><ul><li> Differences between schooling levels are similar to cultural differences associated to independent vs. interdependent self-construal.
    62. 62. Narrative analysis shows evidence of the relationship between schooling experience and the reference to mental states in autobiographical narratives
    63. 63. Need to deepen into the relationship between formal schooling, AM and self construal
    64. 64. Limitations due to sample size.</li></li></ul><li>Preliminary conclusions (2)<br /><ul><li>Formal education seems to promote ways of autobiographical remembering and self-making (Bruner, 2003) associated to the cultures of independence (Leitchman, Wang & Pillemer, 2003; Wang, 2001 Keller, 2007).
    65. 65. Support to Olson’s (1994, 1997) ideas about the role of literacy and literacy practices in the development of the modern notion of mind and individual: separation of the things and their representation, thinking as an epistemic activity, mind as an object defined by mental states and subject as autonomous and responsible for his/her actions.</li></li></ul><li>Implications for Education<br /><ul><li>Need to think about one of the challenges faced by schools in relation to self construction: making possible the development of an autonomous self without paying the price of separation and lack of connection.
    66. 66. From our perspective, the emphasis on autonomy does not necessarily imply a neglect of relatedness.</li></li></ul><li>The Zone of Proximal Identity Development in Apprenticeship Learning<br />Joseph L. Polman<br />University of Missouri–St. Louis<br />
    67. 67. Research focus<br />Experience as an educator and researcher <br />-> Identity and learning seem inextricably linked<br />After school programs<br />ZPD and scaffolding as useful analytic lenses for cognitive development<br />Would a parallel framework work for identity, a “Zone of Proximal Identity Development” (“ZoPID”) <br />
    68. 68. Basic definition of identity<br />In general agreement with Gee. Inter-related strands:<br />Nature-Identity<br />Institution-Identity<br />Discourse-Identity<br />Affinity-Identity<br />Dynamic, achieved in discourse and action<br />Other-positioning and self-positioning<br />
    69. 69. Theoretical framework<br />Trajectories of Identification (Dreier, Wortham)<br />Education organized as Apprenticeship Learning <br />Practice Theory (Lave and Wenger)<br />Sociocultural Approach (Wertsch)<br />Zone of Proximal Identity Development (ZoPID)<br /> The distance between the actual identity developmental level as determined by an individuals' past positionings and the level of potential identity development as determined through mutual negotiation of positioning and stance during actions associated with an identity, under adult guidance or in collaboration with peers. <br />
    70. 70. Research question/-s<br />How does participation in this apprenticeship program … <br />lead to appropriation of new cultural tools?<br />lead to new trajectories of identification?<br />
    71. 71. Methodology<br />Case studies in science and engineering youth program (Saturday and Summer)<br />Unit of analysis: Action<br />Data Sources<br />Observations (field notes, videorecordings)<br />Narrative interviews<br />
    72. 72. Results<br />
    73. 73. Graphical ZoPID<br />
    74. 74. Main conclusions<br />Work in the ZPID <br />dialogic phenomenon <br />stretches across time and space as multiple individuals seize meaning and project significance on their participation in activities, and their expectations for future identification with those activities.<br />Expected pathways of development within the apprenticeship learning environment from “newcomers” to “oldtimers” <br />became culturally shared referents that <br />helped to create zones for identity development, as did possible long-term career interests related to the work of the apprentices, such as in becoming a chemical engineer or a construction worker<br />
    75. 75. Discussion<br />As they work with young people, educators should consider the ZPID, <br />because it affects learning opportunities in the moment, <br />because it affects the trajectories possible for learners to pursue over longer stretches of time. <br />Research which allows us to better understand activity in the ZoPID may better enable us to facilitate human development in all its myriad forms<br />
    76. 76. The construction of learner identity through narrative activity<br />Leili Falsafi & César Coll<br />University of Barcelona<br />Department of developmental and educational psychology<br />Universitat de Barcelona<br />
    77. 77. Research focus<br />A theoretical model of learner identity construction: the constitutive elements and modes of construction<br />The construction of learner identity through discursive (re-)construction of experiences of learning. <br />
    78. 78. Basic definition of identity<br />Identity: “… resources for constructing belonging, recognition of self and others, and context management (what I am, where, with whom and when).”(Bernstein & Solomon, 1999, p. 272)<br />Learner identity: The individual’s sense of recognition as a learner based on the constantly re-constructed meanings about herself as a learner with a higher or lower level of disposition and capacity to learn in different kinds of contexts and situations.<br />
    79. 79. Theoretical framework<br /><ul><li>The discursive nature of identity (e.g. Bruner, 1996; Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Gee, 2000; Penuel & Wertsch, 1995; Ricoeur, 1990, in Roth et al., 2005; Sfard & Prusak, 2005)
    80. 80. Identity construction as deeply embedded in activity and social practice (e.g. Holland et al., 1998; Lemke, 1997; Roth, 2007; Wortham, 2006)
    81. 81. Recognition as essential to identity construction (e.g. Bernstein & Solomon, 1999; Gee, 2000; Taylor, 1994)
    82. 82. A socio-constructivist and dialogic view on learning and education - Theory of interactivity (Coll, 1988; Collet al. 1992)
    83. 83. Identity – a cultural and psychological mediating artifact
    84. 84. Timescale differentiation
    85. 85. The problem of (re-)construction vs. continuity</li></li></ul><li>Learner identity understood as<br /><ul><li>An identity based on the activity of learning
    86. 86. The basis of the construction of the learner’s identities
    87. 87. Constructed using the subjective experience of the individual
    88. 88. Coherent and consistent with a sociocultural approach - the juncture of the social and the individual (as a learner)
    89. 89. The process of making-sense of oneself as a learner </li></li></ul><li>Research questions<br />What can narratives about subjective experience of learning tell us about the construction of the cross-activity LI?<br />Is it possible to identify tendencies and special features in the cross-activity LI based on the individual’s trajectory across different learning activities, through her own narratives about subjective experiences of learning?<br />
    90. 90. Methodology<br />Exploratory study with a qualitative, interpretative approach<br />“Circular” process – “inquiry from the inside <br />Unit of analysis: The spatially/temporally situated subjective experience of<br />specific learning activities in formal and informal contexts<br />groups or types of learning activities in formal and informal contexts<br />Two rounds of semi-structured interviews with15 students of a master program selected by teachers<br />Transana– analytical tool<br />
    91. 91. Methodology –criteria experience<br />an object oriented activity and something to be learned in it <br />that the individual besides herself situates an “other” in the activity, <br />that there is either a sense of recognition of oneself as a learner (intrapersonal level) or that the interaction contains explicit or implicit acts of recognition between two subjects (interpersonal level). <br />
    92. 92. The focus of interviews<br /><ul><li>Experience of the mandatory master course
    93. 93. Positive and negative experiences of learning from formal and informal contexts
    94. 94. Significant aspects of a learning context that is motivating/demotivating, satisfying/frustrating, comfortable/uncomfortable
    95. 95. The valuation of one’s capacity to learn
    96. 96. The description of oneself as a learner
    97. 97. Future expectations of learning
    98. 98. 2nd interview – mainly recollection and meaning construction attached to the 1st interview</li></li></ul><li>Results<br /><ul><li>Qualitative difference between subjective learning experiences
    99. 99. short timescale single event experiences
    100. 100. long timescale habitual experiences
    101. 101. Subjective (learning) experiences can be repeatedly used in the (re-) construction – new meanings about one and the same experience
    102. 102. Identity interference in meaning construction
    103. 103. Narrative activity – (re-)constructive joint and dialogic activity; form inter to intra
    104. 104. The elements of the model – integral parts of the meanings and connectors
    105. 105. Separate systems of meanings for different types of learning
    106. 106. The (re-)construction of the “same” meanings vs. “new” meanings – the range and diversity
    107. 107. The “source” experience of the generalized meanings – single/habitual
    108. 108. The importance of significant others
    109. 109. Diversity of types and contexts of learning</li></li></ul><li>Short timescale single event<br />“I think I was the student that nobody noticed until one day they picked up my writing, well, who has written this? That one. Well, he must be pretty good. I don’t know.”<br />
    110. 110. Long timescale habitual event<br />I. And what happened when your father stopped expecting good grades. S: That happened much later. I think that it did help me. During my childhood and adolescence it was always my father. Even now he’s in a phase where he: What happened? How are you doing, you know? He’s always been very consistent when it comes to following me, and this is why maybe I’m not as committed to myself as to my family. It’s like this part, that I like that they’re proud of me. That if I knew that I don’t know, that doing what my peers are doing, I’ll have a good time, that I’d be ok like that, because who doesn’t like to laze around, right? And be comfortable, right? But I like that my parents are proud of me, that my boyfriend is proud of me, and myself too but not as much, well that they think I’m good.”<br />
    111. 111. Different systems – formal vs. informal learning<br />“When they talk about knowledge society and that the titles will be outdated and that you should be studying your whole life, it bores me on the one hand and makes me dizzy on the other. It’s like No! No! It also makes me want to begin learning of life and not as much in the formal context.”<br />
    112. 112. MotivesObjectives<br />SENSE OF RECOGNITION<br />AS A LEARNER<br />Emotions Learning type/ Characteristics of the activity<br /> Significant others <br /> Experience type <br />Discursive patterns Identity interference<br />
    113. 113. Main conclusions<br /><ul><li>The discursive activity is a (re-)constructive activity – of meanings and experiences
    114. 114. The subjective experience of learning as the basis of the meanings needs to be considered, managed, influenced and guided
    115. 115. LI enables the analysis of meaning construction about subjective learning experiences
    116. 116. LI fulfils the function of a psychological and cultural tool
    117. 117. Using the tool requires knowing the tool - joint access to the tool – both the interviewer and the interviewee
    118. 118. From representation of acts of recognition to a sense of recognition
    119. 119. The difference between the influence and the (re-)construction of short timescale single event and long timescale habitual experiences</li></li></ul><li>Discussion<br />The potential/limitations of an ”unknown” cultural tool <br />Connecting the in – activity LI construction, (e.g. classroom activity), to the on-activity, (e.g. systematic and ad hoc feedback), to the cross-activity LI construction (e.g. annual assessment talks)<br />Increased understanding of the importance of the different elements and their relation<br />The relative importance and influence of single events vs. the habitual events <br />

    ×