Sociocultural views of learning are prominent in the literature about teacher learning and ITE (Bell, 2012; P. Kelly, 2006; Smidt, 2009). For example, Cheng (2005), writing about sociocultural views of learning in ITE programmes, describes learning about teaching as a process of “socialisation or enculturation, leading to shared knowledge through human interactions” (p. 349). She argues that, within the context of an ITE programme, student teacher learning is shaped by social interactions with lecturers and peers. Cheng further asserts that, within a sociocultural view of learning, ITE includes the notion of lecturers as change agents who socialise the student teachers into the culture of teaching. She suggests that this process involves the use of tools and signs, which Werstch (1991) referred to as “mediational means” (p. 48).
Kelly (2006), in describing a sociocultural view of teacher learning, posits that ITE providers should provide opportunities for student teachers to learn and develop “within a complex web of distributed knowing and collaborative learning” (p. 517). He asserts that it is important for student teachers to have opportunities to work together to develop their ideas and critically reflect on their learning.
Johnson (2007) argues that student teacher learning occurs through participation in sociocultural activities and experiences, which in turn mediates learning through the socially constructed symbolic artefacts or tools that are created and used within ITE programmes. Such artefacts include physical tools (such as ICT
content knowledge) that are culturally constructed, used and modified over time. Johnson explains appropriation (section 1.2.3) in the context of teacher education as:
… the process through which a person’s activity is initially mediated by other people or cultural artefacts but later comes to be controlled by the person as he or she appropriates and reconstructs resources to regulate his or her own activities. For example, a novice teacher’s activities may be initially regulated by a physical tool such as a teacher’s guide, but later come under her control as she internalizes certain pedagogical resources (time management, knowledge of students’ abilities, pedagogical content knowledge, etc.) that enable her to teach concepts and/or skills in ways that are more appropriate for a particular group of students in a particular instructional context. (p. 177)
Johnson (2007) further contends that the use of sociocultural views of learning with ITE programmes enables us to recognise the interconnectedness of the cognitive and social aspects of learning. She states:
It opens up the possibility to trace how teachers come to know what they know, how different concepts in teachers’ thinking develop and how this internal activity transforms teachers’ understandings of themselves as teachers, their teaching practices and the nature of their students’ learning. (p. 178)
Peck, Gallucci, Sloan and Lippincott (2009), writing about sociocultural theory and change within ITE programmes, described sociocultural views of learning as “the functional interdependence of individual and collective learning processes, and include particular attention to the process of ‘mediation’ of learning through the appropriation and transformation of conceptual and material tools” (p. 19). They contend that the notion of learning through participation from a sociocultural perspective foregrounds how learning can be understood as a socially negotiated process of change in the ways individuals participate in cultural practices. By this, they mean sociocultural views prioritise the interrelationships of the individual and collective process of learning, with
specific consideration of the role mediation plays in this.
Bell (2012), in theorising teaching as a sociocultural practice, asserts that, when teaching is positioned as a sociocultural practice, the emphasis is on creating an understanding of how human thinking and action takes into account the fundamental relationship between mind and action and individuals’ social, cultural and institutional contexts. Bell states, “… to understand thinking and the practice of teachers and students teaching and learning in classrooms, we need to take into account the sociocultural contexts in which the teaching and learning are occurring, and the relationships between mind and action” (p. 1). Bell used a jigsaw metaphor to describe nine key elements she considered form the foundation of sociocultural teaching and learning – embodied practice, relational practice, social practice, caring practice, political practice, cultural practice, emotional practice, ethical practice and spatial practice. From Bell’s perspective, these elements all interact with each other and foreground the complexities of sociocultural views of learning.
More recently, Hökkä and Eteläpelto (2014) discussed sociocultural views in relation to the pressure on teacher education providers around the world to make changes to meet the demands and challenges of 21st century learners. They argued, “It is clear that in a rapidly changing and increasingly knowledge- dependent world, teacher education must develop to respond to the challenges of the 21st century” (p. 48). They contend that this will require lecturers to work together and to build a shared understanding as part of developing new work practices and curricula that transform their educational organisation and support the introduction of educational innovations.
Kelly (2015), employing a sociocultural lens, locates learning as a process that involves social relationships with others within learning communities. She asserts that the cultural tools in use within such communities are at the centre of learning. Tools such as computers and software help to mediate or transform thought and communication into learning. Kelly further noted that it is through participation that collaborative interaction and interpersonal engagement is promoted and changes in individual activities and goals occur. Kelly describes this process as “participatory appropriation” and posits that, through this process of developing
new understandings, “learning is appropriated rather than merely utilised” (p. 32). Some scholars have focused directly on ICT as part of a sociocultural view of ITE. For example, Laffey (2004), writing about ICT use in early childhood ITE, makes the distinction between appropriation and mastery. He defines mastery as the know how that student teachers exhibit in relation to the use of ICT within their teacher education programme. For example, they know how to use ICT to create their assignments and to access support services within the university context. He states that appropriation refers to their “making the use of technology their own, so that they see a role for their use of technology in other courses, as well as in their planning for future teaching” (p. 362). In other words, mastering a tool involves gaining the skills required to use it, whereas appropriation of the tool goes beyond that and involves developing the knowledge and competence to use it for your own purposes, which may be beyond those for which a tool was originally designed. Similarly, Hamid, Waycott, Kurnia and Chang (2014) described appropriation of ICT within ITE programmes as involving “users integrating new technologies into activities and using tools in ways that are sometimes disparate from the uses the designers originally intended for” (p. 307). Sociocultural views have influenced policy and the design of ITE programmes within New Zealand. According to Kane et al. (2005), the conceptual frameworks that support the design of ITE early childhood programmes highlight the beliefs and understandings of what is involved in becoming a teacher. These frameworks in turn highlight the importance of relationships, which resonates with sociocultural views of learning. Kane et al. further notes that the early childhood curriculum has influenced the sociocultural orientation design of these programmes. They state:
Te Whāriki advocates for interactions between children and adults that are reciprocal and responsive and these principles are identified explicitly in some conceptual frameworks as guiding teacher-educator-student interactions as a model for teachers’ work with children and their families. (p. 56)
Stephenson and Rio (2009) commented on the development of the Graduating Teacher Standards mentioned earlier and indicated that there was a shift to a
sociocultural view of learning expressed in this policy. They stated, “the standards outline professional values and relationships, and teachers are required to demonstrate an understanding of what this means for them as teachers, in building relationships with students, parents, colleagues, and the community” (p. 161). Ritchie (2010) describes the sociocultural influence of Te Whāriki as having changed how teaching is viewed in early childhood settings. She suggests teachers are now viewed as facilitators of learning within the sociocultural context of each early childhood educational setting. She further contends that this teaching approach recognises both the socially constructed nature and co-constructive process of the knowledge involved in teaching and learning. She argues that this change to how teaching is viewed within the early childhood sector needs to be reflected in early childhood ITE programmes. She states, “Teacher education and professional development providers have a key responsibility to instil within their graduates and participants a strong ability to deliver the sociocultural early childhood curriculum” (p. 4). By this statement, Ritchie appears to be challenging early childhood ITE providers to facilitate learning using sociocultural principles. The literature indicates sociocultural views of learning appear to have influenced the design and implementation of early childhood ITE programmes, particularly within New Zealand. I drew on this sociocultural influence in considering the need for and development of a new model to support ITE providers’ understanding of how student teachers might be supported to appropriate and integrate ICT into their teaching practice.
In summary, a sociocultural approach to participatory appropriation of ICT into ITE has at least three features, which I use as reference points in this study:
• It construes learning as situated in social relationships with others within learning and caring communities.
• ICT is seen as a cultural tool, one of the key mediational means for understanding across a number of cultural sites (for example, a university campus and an ECE centre); however its use has ethical, political and community-building aspects that may be different from other mediational tools (activities, books, conversations).
• The use of ICT will change an individual’s goals: learners make it their own in a range of embodied and affective-emotional ways.