Abstract
This article examines why an initially successful innovative pedagogical practice was not sustained. The innovative practice was a computer-mediated activity known as Fifth Dimension (5D) within a collaborative project between a university and a local elementary school. The analysis identifies conflicts and transitional actions which prevented participants from continuing the 5D and yet reveal that the 5D had an impact on the participants’ dominant activities. The analysis provides grounds for rethinking the sustainability of innovations in school as a process of interplay between dominant and non-dominant activities which includes conflicts and almost unnoticeable transitional actions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The 5D artifacts include a maze, task cards, computer programs and other materials described in detail elsewhere (Cole 1996, Chap. 10).
The adjectives “dominant” and “leading” are used interchangeably, based on the fact that in the English translation of the key texts Leont’ev primarily uses the adjective leading while El’konin primarily uses the adjective dominant.
References
Beach, K. D. (1999). Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in education. Review of Research in Education, 24, 124–149.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brown, K., & Cole, M. (2001). A utopian methodology as a tool for cultural and critical psychologies: Toward a positive critical theory. In M. J. Packer & M. B. Tappan (Eds.), Cultural and critical perspectives on human development (pp. 41–66). New York: Suny Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cole, M., & Gajdamashko, N. (2008). The concept of development in cultural-historical activity theory: Vertical and horizontal. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press (in press).
El’konin, D. B. (1977). Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of the child. In M. Cole (Ed.), Soviet developmental psychology (pp. 85–93). White Plains, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Engeström, Y. (1996). Development as breaking away and opening up: A challenge to Vygotsky and Piaget. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 55, 126–132.
Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: The zo-ped. In B. Rogoff & J. Wertsch (Eds.), Children’s learning in the zone of proximal development (pp. 45–63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3–41. doi:10.1177/0013161X05277975.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Hillsdale: Prentice-Hall.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Nilsson, M., & Nocon, H. (2005). School of tomorrow: Teaching and technology in local and global communities. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Sannino, A. (2008). From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(3), 234–257.
Vasilyuk, F. (1988). The psychology of experiencing. Moscow: Progress.
Acknowledgments
The analysis presented in this article was made possible by a grant from the Finnish Cultural Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sannino, A. Sustaining a non-dominant activity in school: Only a utopia?. J Educ Change 9, 329–338 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9080-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9080-z