Assignment 2: Evan Houghton

Observation practice: 2nd Year VET Furniture making class – Practical based lesson

Location: Hume Central Secondary College – G5 Workshop

Lesson Plan: Continue fabricating chest drawers/tables/final projects

Date of observation: 29/08/2024

Framework: Theory of Practice Architecture

Brief Introduction / Overview:

The theoretical lens I have used to analyse my practice observation is the theory of practice architecture, first articulated by Stephin Kemmis and Peter Grootenboer (2008). To support my decision, distinctive features and key concepts outlined in Mahon et al. (2017), Grootenboer and Edwards-Grove's (2024) literature reviews will be used to highlight the analytical, theoretical and transformation affordances this theory can interrogate.

A distinctive feature locating the theory of practice architecture alongside other practice theories is its ontological orientation. This rejects dualism theories by asserting that practices are situated, embodied and indeterminate, prefigured by these arrangements (Mahon et al., 2017). Kemmis (2021, p.7) further describes a distinctive feature of practice-based theories “is its ability to address how life unfolds – and how practices unfold – in the intersubjective spaces in which we encounter one another and the world.”

The theory of practice architectures describes these mundane human activities as socially entwined activities consisting of sayings, doings and relating, appearing in the form of cultural discursive, material economic and social-political arrangements (Grootenboer, 2024). These arrangements or socially entwined activities enable or constrain the practice and, thus, are formative and transformative of the learning inside a practice.

Notably, according to Mahon et al. (2017), the theory of practice architectures provides a contemporary basis to untangle and question potential constraints imposed by previous and current contextual developments. This proves the importance of providing a pathway and opportunity to understand education and learning better stirred into the modern world of practices.

Relevant to my practice observation and final analysis, schooling practices as a tradition have been reproduced to teach or deliver knowledge and content through instructions or demonstrations in front of students. Using Stephin Kemmis and Peter Grootenboer’s theory of practice architectures, questions can be discussed where changes or justice may be required, assisting human development and flourishment in progressing towards the twenty-first century (Mahon et al., 2017).

Analysis through the lens of practice architecture:

I will separate my headings into three main categories to begin analysing my practice observation. These are cultural discursive; material economic and social-political arrangements, as follows.

Cultural Discursive:

According to Grootenboer (2024), cultural discursive arrangements are the resources that prefigure the language and discussions used in and around the practice. The cultural discursive patterns extracted from my observation are broken down into two sub-categories: traditional and nontraditional discourses for my observation.

The traditional keywords observed are “warning, exit, period, break and qualification.” These words the teacher uses enable the classroom practice to focus and control learning behaviour’s desirable for the practice. Teacher-led student learning and practice intentions enable the teacher to have a sense of power or hierarchy in the classroom space, which, I emphasise, is critical as safe operating procedures (machine operations), the duty of care policies, and other physical demonstrations may be required, i.e., lifting and moving timber. This helps set safe boundaries and behavioural expectations in the workshop/woodworking environment, preparing the student for future learning and alternative working environments.

The constraints of these words or sayings may negatively impact students regarding dominance, resistance, and exclusion. Considering the average age (sixteen years) and the lower demographic of the class, students may not want to participate, ask questions or request help due to power and domination in the language used by the teacher.

The nontraditional keywords observed are “practical, sand, shape, plane, level, square, modify, adjust, secure and fix.” These words enable the practical components of the teacher's lesson plan. This supports the students with the appropriate language used in a simulated woodworking workshop environment and better prepares them with the expected language if they enter the trade outside the school environment. This also enables students to feel like they have gained exceptional knowledge, acquired as a select group, and are progressing as junior-level professionals with their vocational education and training certificates.

The consequences of these nontraditional words or sayings may have deterred students from expanding their theoretical language and technical terminology, congressing learning opportunities and communicating. Often, students studying in high school neglect to connect learning from one subject to another. Using non-traditional language and sayings may compromise this interconnected learning, as different sayings and language may be present in all subjects.

So, while cultural discursive arrangements may enable specialist discourses associated with a particular discipline (Mahon et al., 2017), these arrangements may also pose an organisational risk. For example, if a casual relief teacher with no trade background or experience in the furniture-making environment were to supervise this class, the cultural discursive arrangements alone would be complicated to understand and provide meaning. Simply saying to a student, sand, fix, adjust, level, and square their project may have a different action or outcome when compared to what may be required. Thus, I fail to see how a class like this could run with a casual relief teacher unless they also have extensive furniture-making experience.

Material Economic:

According to Mahon et al. (2017), material economic arrangements consider the physical and environmental factors, financial and funding resources, and human and non-human entities, which shape the doings of a practice. To unfold and analyse my practice observation, classroom material economics will be split into traditional and nontraditional subcategories (please refer to Figure.1 G5 workshop on the following page).

The traditional material arrangements I observed was the distinct layout of the instructional area of the workshop. Student tables and chairs are arranged facing the front of the classroom, with a whiteboard, projector screen display and the teacher’s table. This traditional classroom arrangement enables students to listen to instructions from the teacher, place bags and laptops where they feel comfortable to sit, read and complete documentations required for projects and certificate requirements, and collaborate with other students in the class.

A constraint to this type of arrangement is that it also encourages students to sit down upon entry into the classroom space, which is counterproductive, considering practical lessons usually require students to stand and move around the workshop efficiently. This traditional layout also suggests a position of authority by placing the teacher's desk in front of the class and continuing the historical culture of formal and instructional rules and regulations involved with traditional teaching and learning practices of a school setting.

The non-traditional material arrangements of the classroom I observed were the workbench types, shape and height, personal protective and hand tool display racks, and student-accessible machine locations for this practice. This non-traditional layout enables students to move freely around the workshop area, work standing and independently, and access tools and safety equipment if needed. Signage placed on walls also contributes to the safety aspect of this layout, as pictures, tool labelling, and other safe operating procedures are accessible during the practice.

A constraint of this non-traditional material arrangement is that it encourages students to find a corner of a workbench and then expect the teacher to assist them. As evidence of this, recorded times and movements noted in my observation indicate that the teacher needs to move from bench to bench, assisting and encouraging students to continue their work.

While both the traditional and non-traditional material arrangements have aspects that enable and constrain learning, both, in my opinion, could be integrated to provide more blended, material economic arrangements that support or encourage practical and theory-based learning. For example, a teacher's demonstration bench could be set up in the nontraditional teaching space, or flat-screen televisions could be used to enhance the visual learning of the space rather than outdated printouts and labelling.

Social-Political:

Finally, the social-political arrangements described by Grootenboer and Edwards-Grove's (2024) literature are the resources orientated around a practice that shapes the relationship between human and non-human objects. I will also split these observed patterns into traditional and non-traditional subcategories.

I observed the typical teacher-student relationship in the traditional social-political arrangements. Even though the vocational education and training teacher is a trade-qualified cabinet maker (VET Trainer requirement), the students related to the VET teacher are like how they would relate to any other mainstream curriculum teacher. This may be due to organisational or school-wide policies like marking attendance roles and compass reporting. However, it could also reflect preconceived ideas and historical beliefs working within the high school building. The question may be: Would the students relate differently to the VET teacher if the same class was held in an offsite location or factory?

The constraints of traditional social-political arrangements caused a lower student morale and enthusiasm towards learning and following instructions, with some students opting to self-exit and failing to return to work. This traditional relationship enables higher respect and power for the teacher, especially considering that machines and hand tools are in use. Safe working procedures generally cannot be overlooked from the student, teacher and organisational point of view.

The non-traditional social-political arrangements I observed were the language, small talk and the social solidarity between the students and the teacher. Students and the teacher would engage in small talk; sometimes, they joked and laughed at one another, and sometimes, signs of frustration and disappointment would be observed. The reason for the practice was to continue developing furniture-making skills and work-ready knowledge, which enabled a better relationship between the students and the teacher.

A constraint observed in this non-traditional, social-political arrangement was that students sometimes could not work independently. They constantly required advice and recommendations from the teacher. This may also be counterproductive in acquiring job-ready skills and progressing into the trade/ working environment.

Conclusion:

When we analyse practices through the lens of practice architecture, many questions can be asked. By utilising this theoretical resource, a scientific framework can highlight the arrangements that enable or constrain that practice and its learning intentions—allowing the opportunity for formative and transformative change.

References:

Grootenboer, P. , & E.-G. C. (2024). The theory of practice architectures: Researching practices.

Kemmis, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social, and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education (pp. 37–62). Sense Publishers

Mahon, K., Francisco, S., & Kemmis, S. (2017). Exploring education and professional practice: Through the lens of practice architectures. In Exploring Education and Professional Practice: Through the Lens of Practice Architectures. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2219-7