國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 2 Literature review
This chapter begins with a description of socio-cultural learning theory and reviews some key concepts such as situated learning, multiple and distributed expertise, community of practice as well as terms used by Vygotsky such as ZPD, mediation, self-regulation and symbolic tools. Next the concepts of firstness, secondness and thirdness are introduced as well as their connection to human relationships in the work of Bakhtin and to cultural awareness, for which the work of Bhabha will be reviewed; mention is also made of the need for third spaces within bi-cultural organizations and the work of Fougere (2004). A discussion of research on situated teacher learning, teacher knowledge and teacher expertise then follows.
The topic of NESTs and NNESTs is next discussed and an account given of the specific strengths of both; reference is also made to some of the controversies surrounding their roles. Co-teaching as a method which combines the strengths and compensates for the weaknesses of NESTs and NNESTs is then described and some of the main critiques of co-teaching are mentioned.
The final section covers the main co-teaching schemes involving NESTs and NNESTs in East Asia together with the challenges they face. The chapter ends with a review of two programs at present operating in Taiwan.
Theories of learning
A theory which will be used to describe teachers’ development and growth in knowledge through interaction with significant others is the socio-cultural theory of Vygotsky (1978). Socio-cultural theory posits that the deep determinants of human activity, consciousness and personality lie in the historically developing culture which
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
is embodied in various sign and symbol systems. Based on his observations, Vygotsky argued that knowledge is not developed independently of the social context; instead children develop consciousness and higher order thinking skills through social interactions with peers and adults in specific contexts. Human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which persons grow into the intellectual life of those around them (Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky & Kozulin, 1986).
Cognitive development is a process, not of the learner acting on the environment as Piaget (1952) claimed, but of internalizing, especially through language, what we are taught by others. Individual consciousness is determined by the activity of the collective subject. Consciousness and perception can only be understood considering our inclusion in various systems of collective, practical and cognitive activity (Lektorsky, 1984). Progress to higher stages of learning depends not so much on physical development, as Piaget taught (1952); instead when guided by social others, the child is able go a stage beyond its present capacity (Vygotsky, 1978).
The process of determining human consciousness by collective activity is mediated by culture, especially through the use of signs such as language. Thus every inner psychological function was originally external because it was social; it was formerly a social relationship between two people. Vygotsky studied the development of cognition in children; however, socio-cultural learning theory is also applicable to adults by analogy.
Johnson & Gombolek (2003) maintain that the socio-cultural framework provides a coherent theory of great explanatory power on which to base an understanding of the internal cognitive processes of teacher learning. Shin & Kellogg (2007) argue that there is no reason why a classroom cannot function as a social environment of learning where teaching expertise may be learnt from others. Indeed, they say, ‘it is hard to imagine such expertise developing in any other place’ (p.15).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The principal constructs of socio-cultural theory provide a theoretical basis from which to describe the development of teacher knowledge. These constructs include learning from others by internalization and transformation; zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is the difference between what the learner can do alone and what she can do when aided by another, using instruments to learn. For Piaget, a child who is at one stage of cognitive development is unable to undertake operations proper to the following stage; for Vygotsky children can be led beyond their present level by having their learning scaffolded by others.
Learning can also be mediated by cultural objects. Learning is initially mediated by other people and artifacts but learners gradually appropriate these resources by internalization to regulate their own activities. For example, a novice teacher may initially depend on a mentor, peer or lesson plan to get through a class, but eventually the novice develops the internal resources to move successfully through the lesson making their own choices. In this way the novice does not merely acquire skills but is cognitively transformed. Learning mediated by others occurs when teachers discuss their work, plan together, or reflect on how well an activity or lesson has gone and why.
Keeping a journal in which one reflects on one’s teaching is another example of a learning tool (Johnson & Golombek, 2003) and in this study, teachers participating in the AEP were asked to keep a reflective journal on their teaching experiences. This research will examine their journals to trace possible growth of learning.
Also derived from socio-cultural theory are the constructs of situated learning and distributed expertise (Puttnam & Borko, 2000). The traditional cognitive account treats knowledge as the manipulation of symbols inside the mind of the individual independent of context. Situative theory emphasizes the role that the physical and social context play in learning (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Sawyer, 2002).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Cognition does not reside independently in individuals: it is shared among interacting communities whose social conditions and culture shape learning (Greeno, Collins &
Resnick, 1996). For teachers, such communities include the students in their classes, the subject matter they teach, interactions with colleagues and administrator and the local educational culture (Puttnam and Borko, 2000; Sawyer, 2002; Tsui, 2003). Lave (1988) introduced the term community of practice, which novice teachers enter as legitimate peripheral participants (Lave & Wenger, 1991). However, teacher knowledge also includes teachers’ personal beliefs, values and reflections: teacher learning cannot be separated from the person of the teacher (Freeman & Johnson, 1998) who reconciles, constructs, understands, confirms and affirms (Johnson, 2003;
Scanlon, Care & Udod, 2002).
Teachers gain skills and knowledge grounded in these socially mediated experiences and thus construct their own subjective theory of education, often at odds with theories of education they have learnt earlier (Sawyer, 2002). The community of practice is also a discourse community that as well as sharing distributed knowledge, generates its own common language, a symbolic tool, as members use it they create cultural symbols that give them greater control over themselves and their practice (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner & Cain, 1998). Thus teacher learning means coming to know how to participate in the discourse and practices of a particular teaching community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Vygotsky suggested that this common, empirically-based language supports learning, new perspectives and reflection at first between individuals and then leads to learning in the individual as teachers internalize new meanings and symbolic cultural tools and gain control over their own practices (Vygotsky & Kozulin, 1986). Such tools include teachers’ questions, reflections, lesson plans and teaching innovations (Borasi, Fonzi, Smith & Rose, 1999). The community of practice may offer different levels of support ranging from informal
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
conversations to explicit team work, as seen below (Little, 1992). Making use of distributed knowledge gained from the community of practice, teachers can accomplish cognitive tasks beyond the capability of an individual.
Finally, situative learning perspectives identify classroom practice as the primordial location of teacher learning. Teachers often complain that learning experiences outside the classroom, such as workshops and conferences, are too far removed from the day to day work of teaching to have any meaningful impact. The present research gives an opportunity to evaluate to what extent the workshops organized by the AEP administrators were relevant to teacher learning.
Theories of intercultural communication
The other aspect of the co-teaching relationship to be examined is that of growth in cultural awareness through cross-cultural communication. As will be discussed below, cultural frictions are one of the main challenges co-teaching schemes face.
Tracing the development of cross-cultural communication means discussing the nature of culture. Traditional definitions often portray culture as static and monolithic;
Hofstede (1980) describes culture as collective programming of the mind which distinguishes one human group from another. Yet it is obvious that culture also shapes individual thinking and behavior. How to balance the fact that members of a social group share certain common cultural features while recognizing that culture is also specific to each individual? Furthermore, if an individuals’ thinking is shaped by their culture, how can they avoid being prisoners of their culture and thus unable to understand other cultures? Traditional approaches to culture fail to address these two questions and create a triple illusion (Fougere, 2004, p. 3)
1. by fixing culture as an independent variable, they present it as more static
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
than it is.
2. by failing to show how culture varies among individuals, they present them as more homogenous than they are.
3. by comparing cultures by so-called universal terms of comparison, they present cultures as more symmetrical than they are.
Seeing cultures as symmetrical creates the illusion that communicative competence is sufficient for cross-cultural communication. In the western positivist view, as long as there is an open exchange of information, cultural differences will be overcome (Kramsch, 1999). Yet for the anthropologist, Dell Hymes, who introduced the term, communication always had a cultural connotation beside the linguistic, since the patterns of speech, that is to say who can speak, when to speak, vary across cultures (Hymes, 1966). Two people from different cultural backgrounds may be exchanging information through speech, but the act of speaking may have different value in the culture of each one. In the light of this, the post-structualist perspective sees cross-cultural communication not as about reaching a consensus through rational talk between adults, nor understanding each one on their own terms. Cross-cultural communication involves acknowledging that there may not in fact be common ground between the two sides. Cross-cultural communication may require two opposing or even contradictory standpoints to be held in view, this is the perspective of thirdness, to be discussed below.
Seeing cultures as more homogenous than they are, results in grouping people together, often categorizing them in national terms. Keesing (1974) maintains that culture is a system of competence, common in its overall design and principles, what Hofstede (1991) calls software of the mind, but which varies between individuals in certain aspects. More subjectivist definitions emphasize the individuality of culture.
Each person has an individualized system of competence and forms their own theory of what the others in their social group know, believe and think about the world, thus
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
each person has a theory of the code that the others follow, of the game that is being played. In summary, it can be said that culture is not less homogenous than often portrayed, on the following grounds (Fougere, 2004, p. 4)
1. Culture is individual: each individual of a social group has a different theory of the culture of the group. In fact they do not share exactly the same culture although they may strongly perceive that they do.
2. A person may be unconscious of the beliefs and assumptions that are at the core of his identity, however, certain situations may create opportunities to become aware of one’s cultural values and make sense of a personal cultural identity.
3. Each person’s cultural identity can thus be constructed and reconstructed over time, especially through interactions with others.
A co-teaching partnership with an individual from another culture is precisely the kind of bicultural interaction that creates an opportunity for individuals to become conscious of their unspoken beliefs and assumptions, and begin to make sense of their cultural identity (Holden, 2002). Individuals in such situations are actors of their cultural identity (Kramsch, 1998, 1999) following a cultural script that shapes their behavior, however, these identities are reconstructed through interaction, though playing a role in response to the roles played by others, enabling them to go beyond the roles assigned to them (Isihara & Maeda, 2005). Encountering the cultural Other allows for questioning one’s own cultural beliefs and assumptions. Bicultural interaction creates opportunities for learning about the Self from the Otherness of the Other and learning about the Other thanks to an enhanced understanding of the Self (Bakhtin, 1981). This concept of dialectical movement between two individuals leads on to the topic of thirdness.
Thirdness: Peirce, Bakhtin and Bhabha
Thirdness originates in the work of American linguist Charles Peirce. According
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
to Peirce (1966), there are three modes of being: firstness, secondness and thirdness.
Firstness is the way an object is in itself. Peirce used the Bible story of Adam and Eve to say the firstness was the way the world was when Adam first opened his eyes, before Adam classified it or knew it. Secondness is the human encounter with firstness, a seeing, an experience; it does not include any thoughts about the first or the encounter with the first. Thirdness is the domain of the mental phenomena, ideas and perceptions that relate second to first. In semiotic terms, Peirce claims that a sign stands for something, to someone in some respect. It addresses someone, creating in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, the “interpretant” of the original sign. The interpretant is not the sign, nor is it the receiver, it is a third reality, a new sign jointly produced by the sign and by the receiver’s experience of the object the sign refers to.
Thus, the interpretant offers a location, a perspective from which to comprehend, to grasp (Hanly, 2004). The meaning is not in the first sign, it is created in the encounter of the reader with the first sign; the reader is thus the producer of meaning (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980). Traditional personal communication theory follows the engineering transmission theory which says, assuming there is no interference, a sender, A, can encode a message and send it to a receiver, B, who decodes it and gives feedback.
Peirce’s theory of thirdness implies that, unlike engineering transmission, personal communication is not about sending messages; it is a mutual act of sharing, negotiating meaning. The sender is not so important, it’s the text and how it is read.
The meaning is created when the receiver interprets the message in reference to his or her own context and experience (Dahl, 1999). If sender A and receiver B are from different cultural communities, they will have different reference frames; this is not necessarily negative, it can be enriching. It is possible for intercultural communication to take place as long as people make the effort to learn each other’s codes (Dahl, 1999).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Bakhtin (1981) discusses thirdness in the following way: for Bakhtin all meaning is relational, i.e. meaning arises in one reality when that reality encounters another reality: in other words things are defined by their differences, difference creates identity. Bakhtin’s theory is both linguistic and ontological. According to Bakhtin, traditional western personalist humanism saw the Self as the owner of meaning, for deconstructionists no one owns meaning, for Bakhtin, we own meaning, meaning is rooted in the social (Clark & Lampert, 1986; Holquist & Clark, 1984). The semantic space where meaning is created is called inner space for the traditional personalist, for the deconstructionist it is a place that can only be described as elsewhere, for Bakhtin the semantic space is a place he called in-between. Bakhtin blamed linguists for treating words as if no one ever spoke them and claimed that words can only be accounted for in the context in which they are spoken in the presence of the addressee (Holquist & Clark, 1984).
The Self cannot be defined without the Other: this is the essence of Bakhtin’s theory of Dialogism. Otherness determines who one is not and therefore who one is (Fougere, 2004; Holquist, 1990). The encounter with the Other creates occasions for
‘sensemaking’ (Weick, 1995). We are relational beings; our personal and cultural identity are constructed and reconstructed through our relations with others (Kramsch, 1999). For Bakhtin, the Self is not completely internal: to be is always to be on the boundary of our world, where we encounter the Other. Thus the interpersonal, the social, help create the individual: the parallels with Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development through socialization are apparent here. Bakhtin’s boundary is the third space between the two individuals where opposite views can meet and be made sense of. Learning a foreign language, living in a foreign country, entering a bicultural relationship, these are border experiences where one can see oneself from an outside vantage point and realize that one is no longer the person one imagined oneself to be
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(Holquist, 1990; Kramsch, 1999).
Bhabha (1990) also has recourse to thirdness when he maintains that cultures are not self-contained and complete, they are constantly in a process of making signs and symbols of themselves, myths and metaphors. A culture that seeks to be dominant, such as modern western culture, may claim itself to be fixed. In an interview with Mitchell (1995) Bhabha criticized western multiculturalism because it treats other cultures as museum items to be classified on the western multicultural grid (p. 80). He argued that understanding someone from another culture requires an effort of what he calls ‘translation’ from the Self perspective to the Other, while at the same time keeping both perspectives in view. This is the third space, the point of identification with and through another object – e.g. a person or a culture, - an object of Otherness, where the agent of identification, the subject, itself becomes ambivalent because of the intervention of the Other. Personal and cultural identity are thus always in flux, always becoming, never self-contained in their being.
Thirdness is thus the nexus of three theoretical strands: the semiotic theory of Peirce, the dialogism of Bakhtin and the third space of Bhabha. Communication is not the coming together of predetermined identities and meanings, thirdness views communication as the relational making of signs, the responsive construction of identity and the interdependence of difference (Kramsch, 1999). This investigation hopes to determine whether intercultural communication takes place to the extent that participants reach perspectives of thirdness with regard to the culture of their partner and their own. Are co-teachers in the AEP able to meet on the boundary between their two cultures where they forge a new new cultural identity which enables them to reassess their culture of origin, making them a different kind of Taiwanese, a different kind of American?
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Third spaces in organizations. Fougere (2004) objected that Bakhtin’s theory of Dialogism was over-optimistic about the benevolence of individuals in intercultural relationships and was less applicable to individuals in organizations. Studies of intercultural relationships in organizations show that individuals tend to identify with their own group and misunderstand outsiders (Fougere, 2004; Janssens & Steyaert, 1999). Bi-cultural working relationships are undermined by the issue of ‘addressivity’
(Bakhtin, 1981; Fougere, 2004). Addressivity means sending an appropriate message for the Other to understand; however, in intercultural communication the message is often distorted by two tendencies: projected similarity and stereotyping. Projected similarity is when one assumes that people are more similar to oneself than they really are. Stereotyping occurs as a result of a natural cognitive tendency to categorize.
(Bakhtin, 1981; Fougere, 2004). Addressivity means sending an appropriate message for the Other to understand; however, in intercultural communication the message is often distorted by two tendencies: projected similarity and stereotyping. Projected similarity is when one assumes that people are more similar to oneself than they really are. Stereotyping occurs as a result of a natural cognitive tendency to categorize.