Many of the issues discussed in this literature review have contributed to the reconfiguration of the vision of initial teacher education in the Saudi Arabia context through a partnership between the school and the university. The review has identified the type of partnership in this context, the tensions and contradictions existing within this partnership, and ways of exploring and minimizing the impact of contradictions between these systems. The Oxford and Exeter models have given valuable perceptions regarding the content of partnerships, and how the processes within these partnerships can work through the distribution and proper organization of roles and responsibilities. This could be an important factor in the creation of an effective common space between the different systems, which should lead to effective professional development. Therefore, the review of the literature helped reshape the research questions, as follows:
1. Does the science teacher preparation programme at the university support the students in learning teaching?
Emanating from the main question, several questions arise:
(A) Is the type of programme compatible with modern trends in the education of the teacher?
(B) Are the modules of the university preparation programme compatible with the curricula applied in schools?
(C) Is the duration of the science teachers‘ preparation programme at the university appropriate?
2. Does the teaching practice in schools support the student science teachers‘ learning?
Emanating from the main question, several questions arise:
(A) Do the schools provide a good environment for teaching practice for student science teachers?
(B) Is the duration of the teaching practice programme appropriate for science student teachers to learn to teach?
3. Does the relationship between the school and the university support science student teachers to learn teaching?
Emanating from the main question, several questions are as follows:
(A) What kind of partnership is the relationship between the university and the school?
(B) How can a third space be created for the relationship between the university and the school to become a partnership?
4. What are the challenges and contradictions in the teacher preparation programme?
Emanating from the main question, several questions arise:
(A) What are the contradictions that produce the conflicts faced by science student teachers in their learning from the teacher preparation programme at the university?
(B) What are the contradictions that produce the conflicts faced by science student teachers in their learning from the teaching practice programme in the school?
(C) What are the challenges facing the relationships for science student teachers learning to teach?
Chapter Three
Theoretical Framework
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the theoretical framework of the research through two main sections. In the first section, the theoretical framework of Activity Theory (AT) is introduced and its history, background and principles are described. Following this, the second section discusses how Activity Theory has shaped my research. This also includes an overview of the uses of Activity Theory in relation to research into teacher education, and a discussion of how ‗activity‘ is used as a unit of analysis. According to Chambers and Bax (2006), teacher preparation is a complex process and it is necessary to understand the interrelationships between key factors in the reality of the life of the student teacher. Since the life of a student teacher lies between two different systems, namely the school system and the university system, it is a complex social phenomenon which requires a depth of understanding of the relationships between the different systems (Somekh, 2007). The student teacher is subject to the practices of teaching and learning at the same time through the school and the university. Therefore, student science teachers are building expertise through education practitioners as well as university supervisors and therefore will be influenced by different views on the education of the teacher. Bakhurst (2009), argues that activity theory does not deserve to be called a theory because "it is a theoretical representation of the general structure of activity systems" but rather than being a theory it is better thought of as "a model or schema that has minimal predictive power" and as "a universal, but generally vacuous schema, that turns out to be a useful heuristic in reference to certain kinds of activity" (p. 206). In addition, Bakhurst describes the activity systems as dynamic systems where transformations take place so argues that it is not appropriate to describe them using stable representations like the diagrams that are used to represent activity systems, and there are also differing interpretations of the nature of the object of
activity – whether it means the purpose or aim of the activity or what the activity system is acting on.
Although AT can be criticised as being weak as a predictive theory it is still useful as a heuristic (an approach to studying something in order to find something out). Nussbaumer (2012) indicated that "‗This theory‘s importance lies in organizing, sifting, sorting, and clarifying complex phenomena found in activity, in and beyond the classroom" (p. 45). This is consistent with the way in which I have used it.
Whilst I could have used another approach such as constructivism, which reflects its principles of construct knowledge and a focus on the learning of individuals, Activity Theory is a much broader approach which enables to focus on the complexities of the whole system in which individuals learn and enables me to consider ways in which the activity system as a whole can be analysed and suggestions made for changing or improving the system.. Kuutti (1996) affirmed that ―Activity Theory and the concept of activity seem to be particularly suited to being used as the starting point in studying contextually embedded interactions‖ (p.37), such as this one. I believe that the theory of activity ―is well positioned to provide a powerful and expansive unit of analysis which can address this issue‖(Westberry, 2009, p. 56). This is supported by Jaworski and Potari (2009, 222 ) who argue that Cultural Historical Activity theory (CHAT) ―. . . has power to deal with the complexity in educational systems‖.
This chapter aims to provide justification for the methodology used in this research by basing it on the conceptual framework of the research, using Activity Theory as a link between the search for an expansive unit of activity analysis in initial teacher education studies and effective research methods. Jonassen and Murphy (1999) described Activity Theory as an analytical tool for the process of educational activity: "Activity Theory provides an alternative lens for analyzing learning methods, procedures and outcomes that explores more of the complexity and integratedness with the context and community that surround and support it" (p.68).