Vocational curriculum and pedagogy:

An activity theory perspective

Stephen Billett

Griffith University, Australia

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002

Abstract

This paper invites critical appraisal of three interrelated conceptual tools used to propose how curriculum goals and content, and pedagogic practices might be advanced for vocational education. The common foundation of these tools is thier association with what has come to be known as socio-historical activity theory (e.g. Cole 1998). Firstly, an account of the social sources of vocational knowledge (sociogeneses) comprising history, culture (Scribner 1985) and situation (Billett 1998) is proposed as providing a basis to understand the canonical requirements of vocational practice as well as its manifestations in actual practice. Currently, many of the goals for vocational program purport to account for the socio-cultural level practice (e.g. national competencies, national skills standards). Yet these fail to account for the actual manifestations of the vocational practice where practice is conducted and judgements are made about performance. Secondly, learning vocational practice can be understood in terms of participatory practice (Billett 2001a) which is on the one hand, the way that individuals are invited to participate in activities and afforded support by the social practice (e.g. vocational college, workplace) and on the other, how they elect to engage in the activities and interactions that are afforded by the vocational college or workplace. Together, the reciprocal bases of participatory practice --- workplaces affordances and individual engagement assist in thinking about the bases by which learning vocational practice might proceed. Thirdly, illuminating both the two earlier points, it is possible to use categories of activities and interactions (Billett 2001c) to describe the requirements for work and, hence, the goals for learning specific vocational practice; and also to delineate participatory practices.

Vocational knowledge and learning

This paper proposes that vocational knowledge is historically and culturally constituted and manifested in particular ways in each workplace setting. Learning this social and culturally-derived knowledge, therefore, requires engagement in socially-derived activities and access to informed social partners, and participating in the particular work practice. As the vocational knowledge to be learnt has social geneses, and is constructed by individuals inter-psychologically (between the individuals and the social practice) central to learning vocational practice and developing the capacity to be adaptable across instances of practice, is the need to engage in the kinds of activities and access the kinds of practice that can best develop the kinds of capacities required for performance. Pedagogical considerations, therefore, warrant a consideration of participation in vocational practices. However, learning as participation need to be thought of as being reciprocal (Rogoff 1990; Rogoff 1995). The participatory practices are what the social practice (e.g. vocational college, workplace) affords the individual. Affordance refers to the invitational qualities of the workplace. The degree by which what is afforded to the individual in terms of access to activities and social guidance is central to what is learnt through participation. Nevertheless, individuals determine how they elect to engage in the practice and, therefore, what is learnt through that engagement. Individuals’ agency likely determines whether they engage superficially or in a full-bodied way. Given the constructive nature of learning, the quality of engagement is central to what is learnt.

Further, goals for learning vocational practice, vocational curriculum, and pedagogic goals and practices need to account for these historical cultural and situational bases of vocational knowledge. A consideration of situational requirements as well as culturally-derived need may assist understanding the bases of the knowledge to be learnt and the kinds of inter-psychological interactions (experiences) that will likely transpire. These ideas are supported and illuminated by socio-cultural activity theory (e.g.(Scribner 1997/1990; Cole 1998) as they are premised on a consideration of the socially-derived activities individuals engage in and also the interactions with social partners, sources and artefacts that is central to cognition. Therefore, categories of activities and interactions can be used to understand the kinds of task requirements in each work setting, and the kinds of learning that might arise through participation. This is the third point. Activities and interaction can be used to illuminate and describe the requirements for work practice and, in doing so, identifies what is canonical to the vocation, what is privileged in the particular situation and what is supra-cultural thereby reflecting the practice that may have applications across cultural practices such as occupations. Some understanding of the range of applications of vocational practice may assist developing adaptability, as novices can be informed about the different kinds of requirements for performance across the vocation. This seems important as expectations of ‘far’ transfer -- that is to circumstances that are quite different than those in which learning occurs -- may have been overly ambitious.

The paper is structured to advance these propositions for critical appraisal. Firstly, existing conceptions of vocational curriculum are discussed, emphasising the need to account or the social genesis of the knowledge to be learnt and the social bases of learning. Following this, a conceptual basis for the sociogenesis of knowledge is advanced. This proposes that there are historical and socio-cultural sources of vocational knowledge that is ultimately manifested in particular situations (workplaces). The learning of this knowledge is held to occur through the inter-psychological processes that represent the interaction between the cognitive and social experience (Valsiner and van der Veer 2000). That is, individuals’ socially-derived ontogeny (i.e. the cognitive experience) interacts with what is encountered in the particular social practice (e.g. workplace, classroom) and the construction, refinement and extension of knowledge occurs microgenetically (i.e. moment-by-moment, and continually) (Rogoff 1990) through inter-psychological processes. Then, having described the sources of knowledge and their construction, the implication for vocational curriculum and learning a vocational practice are discussed. It is held that the generic kinds of competencies favoured in a number of countries reflect the phylogenetic (evolving history of the species) level of practice, whereas national core curriculum existing in many western countries are representative of practice at the socio-cultural level. Therefore, this focus may be inappropriate in seeking to understand the requirements for practice and bases for learning intents and processes that can best address learning the robust vocational practice required to use that knowledge adaptably. Given the importance of developing robust vocational knowledge, the bases for how best this are considered. Following this, issues associated with the assessment of and the promotion of learning for vocational practice.

Vocational curriculum

The development of vocational[1] education curriculum documents and structures in many western countries remains premised on behavioural accounts of the goals for and the process of learning. Those who believe that outcomes-focussed or behavioural curriculum accounts provide a basis for focussing instruction on and the assessment of measurable outcomes, are often governments, governmental agencies or the voice of industry, who want certainly in the outcomes of vocational learning. Such outcomes are seen as offering surety in the management of education, teachers and student learning. However, the measurable outcomes that behavioural intents (e.g. objectives) privilege are often only able to account for superficial outcomes (Hogben 1970) and are unable to account for the kinds of processes that underpin complex performance (Glaser 1989). While behavioural measures have long been rejected as being appropriate for general education, they have been suggested as having utility for vocational education (Stenhouse 1975), because erroneously, the process and outcomes of ‘vocations’ are held to be measurable and of a lesser degree of sophistication than other human activities, such as those being prepared for by university-hosted vocational courses. Here resides a key problem for vocational education curriculum and pedagogy. That is it is often seen to demand lower, rather than different, levels and kinds of outcomes than those in compulsory and higher education. However, instead of being routine and simple the demands of work are often highly complex, demanding and far from routine (Billett 2000). Significantly, the focus of many of the studies that were used to illuminate the cognitive view of expertise were instances of vocational practices(Ericsson and Lehmann 1996). These studies were used to identify the complexity of human performance, yet this seems not to have translated into a wider acceptance of complexity of the purposes of vocational education. Part of that complexity is the need to respond to the changing requirements of vocational practice and to be able to adapt to its variations across work practices. Also, important is the role that practise plays in the development of vocational capacities as well as opportunities for practise across different situations where the vocational practice to be learnt is being enacted.

So it seems that that the cognitive ‘revolution’ had little impact on the standing of vocational education or an elaboration of its purposes. Certainly governments seem to have ignored many of its contributions. There is an exception, however. There has been widespread interest in identifying, teaching and assessing generic or key workplace competencies that are proposed as being applicable to each and every situation. These include the Mayer Key Competencies in Australia (Mayer 1992) and the SCANS competencies in the USA (The, Secretary's et al. 1992). The cognitive view in emphasising human performance capacities premised on their organisation, selection and application privileged expertise as the quick and clever use of individuals’ cognitive structures, within a domain of activity that provided the bases for the organisation, selection and application of knowledge. However, understanding the bases of adaptability to a wider domain of activities (e.g. far transfer) has largely remained an unrealised goal and something not able to be elaborated by the cognitive perspective. Rather than being unitary and objectively constituted, domains of human activity have diverse geneses, values and forms, even when an apparently common activity (e.g. occupational practice) is constituted and enacted in particular circumstances.

The important point here is that rather than adaptability being focused on the skilful manipulation of individual’s knowledge, there is a need to understand something of the diversity of the kinds of practices to which that knowledge might be applied. Despite this, governments and employer bodies in a number of countries have identified generic vocational competencies (e.g. SCANS 1992, Mayer 1992) that are proposed as making the possessor able to adapt them across workplace activities. However, there is little to support the efficacy of such measures, largely because they are unable to negotiate across distinctive domains or even settings where the same domain-specific activity. This is because what constitutes the knowledge required for performance and bases for judgements about effective performance have situational geneses as well as those reflecting broader cultural needs (e.g. occupations). In particular, the broader the generic competency (e.g. problem-solving’ or team work) the less likely it is to be useful as a bases for performance, except at the most general level (i.e. look before you leap, think before you act (Evans 1993). To be effective, they have to be embedded in a particular context. To suggest that problem-solving is a generic process that does not require detailed knowledge of a domain of activities in which the problem is to be solved, the kinds of solutions that might be accepted as worthwhile, is fanciful and flawed, and counters what has been long argued about the domain-specificity of expert performance (Chi, Glaser et al. 1982; Gelman and Greeno 1989; Ericsson and Lehmann 1996). Rather than identifying meta-skills that can transfer across domains it seems likely that such transfer, where it is possible, is more likely to be in the form of quite specific procedures and concepts. For instance, the capacity to touch-type or use a keyboard transcends domains of human activity, although the skills might be used may not be (e.g. the different kinds of writing that exist, the array of software functions activated through key strokes). So whereas the specific procedures may transfer, the more strategic procedures and concepts are probably more resistant to transfer.

In different ways, both of the cognitive and behavioural perspectives emphasis or privilege learning as being something largely shaped by individual cognitive processes alone – their cognitive experience. Yet, both acknowledge social contributions (e.g. the external stimuli and the existence of domains), although their accounts of the relationship between the cognitive and social experience (Valsiner and van der Veer 2000) are not clearly developed or articulated. Importantly, the knowledge required for vocational practice does not arise within the individual. It is a product of historical development, cultural requirements with its specific manifestation being shaped by particular sets of situationally-constituted factors (Billett 1998; Billett 2001). What constitutes vocational practice, what comprises the requirements of and bases for judgements about performance are constituted at the situational level as well as at occupational (socio-cultural) level. Therefore, without a consideration of the situational requirements for work practice and vocational expertise, the account of vocational practice and bases for adaptability are rendered incomplete. Moreover, these different levels sources of what constitutes practice (i.e. historical, cultural and situational) provide different bases to consider curriculum and assessment practices as they guide approaches to and for the different goals for vocational education. These include what might be taken as the canonical goals for vocational education generally, the requirements of a course for a particular vocation as well as situational requirements for performance. In terms of developing adaptable vocational practice, it is proposed that rather than suggesting canonical knowledge provides a basis for extending the reach of vocational practice, there is a need to account for some of the range of situational manifestations of the vocational practice. That is, a focus on practice, rather than just the skilful use of individuals’ cognitive experience.

Sociogeneses of knowledge

Within sociocultural constructivist theory, the activities individuals engage in and through which their cognition is shaped, are held to have historical and cultural geneses (Scribner 1985; Rogoff 1990; Cole 1998). Four lines of development or social sources have been advanced by these theorists, comprising the: (i) phylogenetic --- the evolving history of the human species; (ii) sociocultural --- development that reflects a particular cultural need; (iii) microgenetic development --- the moment-by-moment learning that occurs through individuals’ engagement with the social world; and (v) ontogenetic development --- the evolving base of individuals’ socially constructed knowledge as a product of their life histories. These lines of development have been augmented by a consideration of the situational level of practice, its formation, genesis, (Billett 1998; Billett 2001), manifestation of practice (Suchman 1997) and contributions to learning (Lave 1993; Rogoff 1995; Engestrom and Middleton 1996; Goodnow 1996). Here, cultural psychologists, activity theorists and anthropologists have made important contributions in identifying the factors that shape practice and how these practices influence the ways individuals act and interact in those practices and thereby learn.

Phylogenetic sources reflect the growing accumulation of knowledge that arises from human need and experiences, and reflects cultural need and changing technologies, that are supra-cultural. These sources influence cultural practice and situational actions. For instance, addressing human need in health, education or other services, might well be premised on heuristics of determining need and finding options that are compatible with those needs. Similarly, parenting practices have different forms across cultures, in matters associated with toilet training, proximity of children to parents at night, parental roles etc (Rogoff 1990). Changes demanded at the situational level such as those to procedures (e.g. the kinds of activities the situation demands), also shape the evolution of the vocational practice, phylogenetically. Growing environmental concerns in western countries, for example, might cause a shift to find non-chemically based hair shaping treatments, and motor mechanics’ disposal of waste oils and coolants, thereby transforming the vocation in response to changing cultural need. This contributes to phylogenetic development through the need to provide services that meet evolving cultural needs. That is, there is a historical legacy in the form of a phylogenetic outcome for the need to consider environmental concerns more broadly. However, such heuristics might play out differently in different cultural practices such as in schooling (e.g. something to be taught), nursing (e.g. the use and disposal of materials), or car mechanics (the recycling and considerate disposal of batteries, tyres, oils and coolants).

Sociocultural practice is viewed as being a cultural need for this activity derived historically or phylogentically. It represents a cultural need (Scribner 1985) that evolves over time and comprises an identifiable set of practices, values, technologies, and norms and practices. Vocations provide examples of sociocultural practice, in the form of paid work (e.g. mechanics, hairdressing), as they are a manifestation of cultural need transforming over time, as needs and technologies change. For instance, vocations and the kinds of norms and practices practitioners adopt are likely to be the subject of some shared expectations. There are technical and values-based expectations, such as teachers being able to instruct and develop students capacities, being able to identify individual student strengths and weaknesses and advise parents of their potentials, and dealing with students fairly and reasonably. These practices are inseparable from the cultural context, from which they are sourced (Scribner 1985). For instance, the vocational practice of hairdressing has a different cultural genesis than does barbering. This has resulted in distinct clienteles, practices and techniques. Sociocultural practice might transcend a number of countries (e.g. doctoring, nurses) or alternatively have a number of manifestations within a particular country (e.g. different styles of cooking).