In this section I continue discussion of the ‘improvable object’ as identified above, by outlining the nature and use of learning objects, followed by a discussion of the orchestration of such tools to support a cumulative learning experience. In general terms, and to emphasise the place of learning objects within a sociocultural perspective of learning as mediated, Wertsch (1991) identifies the role of mediating artefacts in sociocultural theory in that:
any tendency to focus exclusively on the action, the person(s), or the mediational means in isolation is misleading… mediational means are inherently related to action… Only by being part of action do mediational means come into being and play their role. They have no magical power in and of themselves. (p. 119)
Thus analysis of learning objects must take account of the context of their use – any object can be a learning object if used with that purpose. The converse is also true, that an object can only be
52
considered a learning object when its affordances are interpreted and acted upon as such.
Therefore the construction of knowledge through engagement with and interpretation of learning objects is crucial to this process of learning with objects.
In judging what is relevant to an interaction, and a view of the ‘long conversation of learning’ (Maybin, 2006; Mercer, 2000), Green, Yeager and Castanheira (2008) propose that ‘any idea has a history’ (p. 120), in trying to plot this history and progression as a ‘historical web of ideas’ (p. 126). In this frame they describe dialogue as an opportunity to explore understandings, ‘not as a
finished text but as a work in progress’ (p. 123). Here dialogue can be considered as an object, as can the idea being interpreted and re-interpreted across the history of its use. I now consider the issue of how such objects are used over time, focusing particularly on the notion of an
‘improvable object’ (Wells, 1999).
2.6.1 The learning object as an improvable object
Wells (1999) raises the relevance of the term ‘progressive discourse’, and the ‘improvable object’ as a means to work on current knowledge or knowledge objects, to expand, revise and open up propositions for criticism. He argues that writing can offer an advantage over or alongside the temporary nature of spoken language, in that ‘it can be reviewed, rethought and revised through a different form of dialogue, in which the text under construction plays a central role’ (p. 115). This refers to something being written at the time, but Wells also argues for the case where an already-written text can be used as a resource in current discussion, as a permanent and shared resource on which to draw: ‘Both for readers and writers, then, the text can function as the “improvable object” that provides the focus for progressive discourse and simultaneously embodies the progress made’ (p. 115).
Säljö (1999) offers a similar argument stating that ‘When writing, in some form, entered the scene, the mode in which humans used their limited cognitive capacities changed. Writing can
53
preserve and make permanent messages in a manner that talk does not (Ong, 1982)’ (p. 146). Thus the combination of speech and writing provides a powerful tool for knowledge construction, as an improvable object to illustrate any progression of discourse.
Continuing this line of thinking around the use of written texts, Wells (1999) argues that: the individualistic nature of both production and reception [of writing], coupled with the great variation among students in speed and fluency, mean that sustained written text can only serve occasionally as the “improvable object”... it is the material permanence of the form in which the semiotic artefact is embodied that enables it to support the recursive reflection and revision that is so important a characteristic of knowledge building. (p. 116)
In this sense, and in comparing an IWB-mediated and a non-IWB resource, as well as offering the potential for permanence of an idea an IWB can also be used to support a ‘temporary exploration of ideas, in a form of semi-permanence, until its purpose has been served and any changes can be discarded’ (Twiner, et al., 2010, p. 215). Haldane’s (2007) reference to the IWB as a stable
medium (drawing on Kozma, 1994), relative to talk as unstable, is a useful notion in considering how orchestration across communicative modes and media can resource fruitful exploration and refinement of thinking, in temporary and more permanent form.
More recently Wells (2009) again refers to the use of an improvable object, in that it: provides a purpose as well as a focus for the attempt to achieve understanding. This object can take many forms, ranging from a functioning model to a work of art (e.g. a drawing, a story or poem, a musical performance) and from a scientific explanation to a geometric proof, a map or a diagram. Such an object is likely to be particularly effective if it is a representation of its creators’ current understanding, for which an explanation has to be given to justify its acceptance. And since improving this object is the goal of the joint
54
activity, recognizing weaknesses or limitations in the object is likely to motivate revision, which in turn leads to greater understanding. (p. 290)
This chimes with a view of the increasing use of technologies and resources in different communicative modes in the contemporary classroom, whereby objects can be worked on, or improved, through physical manipulation as well as spoken explanation and negotiation around their real and represented features. Key points remain however, from a sociocultural perspective: that objects as mediating artefacts are embedded through experience with awareness of their previous uses; that users are active in their engagement with and improvement of objects; and that improvement is a dialogic, interactive process between speakers, and between speakers and objects. This interactive focus thus brings us to consider the process of orchestration across teaching-and-learning activities and experiences.
2.6.2 The orchestration of learning objects, activities and experiences
As Twiner, et al. (2010) articulate, there can be pedagogic benefits of ‘orchestrated interplays amongst various modes in the same communicative event or resource’ (p. 216), whereby: ‘Teacher talk... can be viewed as offering a framework to support the “reading” of other modes, toward a cumulative, meaningful understanding of information presented via various modes’ (p. 218). In this frame some uses of specific modes of communication (e.g. speech, gesture, image) or objects may be planned, and others in spontaneous response to unfolding lesson interactions. This identifies orchestration as an interactive and reactive process, which is necessarily influenced by the pupils as active participants in their use of learning objects, as well as drawing on the teacher’s original lesson plan.
Following a similar thread of addressing IWB use alongside other resources through an analytic focus on the ‘multimodal orchestration of resources’, Littleton, et al. (2010) state that:
we build on the work of Bourne and Jewitt (2003) who in characterizing “multimodal orchestration” drew attention to the ways in which learning and teaching take place
55
through the complex interplay of a range of modes (which we define as organized sets of semiotic resources for meaning making that instantiate the work of culture and social usage; see Jewitt, 2009). (p. 131)
In their work they highlight the relevance of Sawyer’s (2004) conceptualisation of teaching as ‘disciplined improvisation’, as described in more detail in section 2.9.2, as well as the links between orchestration as responsive to pupils, and the aims of dialogic teaching. They suggest that the metaphor of orchestration is a useful way to view teaching-and-learning practices, whereby:
Part of the spontaneous responsiveness is about managing the unexpected questions and comments the children themselves come up with. Activities can emerge from
interactional contexts, not directly from the lesson plan or technology/technological resources. In this way, teaching is far more than following the curriculum, it is a creative act of transformation. (p. 139)
This offers a different way of viewing the ‘transformation’ discourse that has been so prevalent particularly in research at the time when IWBs were new to schools (Twiner, 2010), and particularly a different way of addressing any ‘bizarre answers’ pupils may offer. In Littleton, et al.’s instantiation, transformation refers to the construction of knowledge through immersion and participation in learning experiences mediated by interactions with learning objects, rather than as a direct consequence of the use of potentially ‘transformative’ technologies. This again is not to downplay the potential of the IWB as a tool to support such transformation, but merely to state that how any tool is used will determine any transformative effects created through use.
In developing and critiquing the ‘orchestration’ metaphor as applied to teaching, Beauchamp, et al. (2010) suggest that, whilst there is variation in how it is defined, orchestration is generally interpreted to imply a pre-set arrangement. In this interpretation, orchestration would not be considered improvisational or responsive. They consider that by inclusion of the concepts ‘serendipity and improvisation’ within teaching, a ‘jazz’ metaphor would be more appropriate,
56
which allows for an overall musical ‘plan’, but with more scope for interpretation, improvisation and embellishment within each ‘performance’. They term such activity ‘“dynamic orchestration”, in which planned activities are rearranged and redesigned during the lesson in response to matters that arise’ (p. 147). Having considered the process of orchestration and flexible use of learning objects within this process, I now consider in more detail uses of some of the tools commonly found in contemporary classrooms on which to create, work with and work across such objects.